 |
|
|
|
February 15th, 2011
07:00 AM ET
My Take: Science and spirituality should be friends
By Deepak Chopra, Special to CNN For most people, science deserves its reputation for being opposed to religion. I'm not thinking of the rather noisy campaign by a handful of die-hard atheists to demote and ridicule faith. I'm thinking instead of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution has proved victorious over the Book of Genesis and its story of God creating the universe in seven days. Since then, God has been found wanting when measured against facts and data. With no data to support the existence of God, there is also no reason for religion and science to close the gap between them. Yet the gap has indeed been closing. Religion and spirituality didn't go away just because organized religion has been losing its hold, as suggested by showing decades of declining church attendance in the U.S. and Western Europe. Despite the noisy atheists, two trends in spirituality and science have started to converge. One is the trend to seek God outside the church. This has given rise to a kind of spirituality based on personal experience, with an openness to accept Eastern traditions like meditation and yoga as legitimate ways to expand one's consciousness. If God is to be found anywhere, it is inside the consciousness of each person. Even in the Christian West we have the assurance of Jesus that the kingdom of heaven is within, while the Old Testament declares, "Be still and know that I am God." The other trend is a growing interest by scientists in questions about consciousness. Twenty years ago, a respectable researcher couldn't ask daring questions such as "do we live in an intelligent universe?" or "Is there mind outside the body?" That's because materialism rules science; it is the core of the scientific worldview that reality is constructed out of physical building blocks - tiny things like atoms and quarks - whose motion is essentially random. When you use words like "intelligence" and "design" in discussing the patterns in nature, immediately you are tarred with the same brush as creationists, who have hijacked those terms to defend their religious beliefs. But time brings change, and next week my foundation is hosting a symposium in Southern California where the gap between science and spirituality will be narrow somewhat, not on the basis of religion but on the basis of consciousness. Outside the view of the general public, science has reached a critical point. The physical building blocks of the universe have gradually vanished; that is, atoms and quarks no longer seem solid at all but are actually clouds of energy, which in turn disappear into the void that seems to be the source of creation. Was mind also born in the same place outside space and time? Is the universe conscious? Do genes depend on quantum interactions? Science aims to understand nature down to its very essence, and now these once radical questions, long dismissed as unscientific, are unavoidable. My conference, called the Sages and Scientists Symposium: The Merging of A New Future, is only one in a wave of gatherings through which hundreds of researchers are working to define a new paradigm for the relationship between spirituality and science. It is becoming legitimate to talk of invisible forces that shape creation - not labeling them as God but as the true shapers of reality beyond the space/time continuum. A whole new field known as quantum biology has sprung up, based on a true breakthrough - the idea that the total split between the micro world of the quantum and the macro world of everyday things may be a false split. If so, science will have to account for why the human brain, which lives in the macro world, derives its intelligence from the micro world. Either atoms and molecules are smart, or something makes them smart. That something, I believe, will come down to a conscious universe. Agree or disagree, you cannot simply toss the question out the window. It turns out that the opposition of science to religion is a red herring. The real goal of a new science will be to expand our reality so that spiritual truths are acceptable, along with many other subjective experiences that science has long dismissed as unreliable. We are conscious beings who live with purpose and meaning. It seems unlikely that these arose form a random, meaningless universe. The final answer to where they came from may shake science to its core. I certainly hope it does. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Deepak Chopra. soundoff (1,568 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next »
« Previous entryPhiladelphia Catholics demand changes in the church
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: Deepak Chopra is founder of the 
Looking at the rationality of Atheists, I have to say that they are the true Yogis. They have the courage to accept their reality, their truth, and they truly accept God as God is, rather than fictionalizing Him.
Tiger, what are you smoking. I've met a few rational atheists, but not many. Most I've met are spewing the wholly irrational garbage they pick up from their own min-go.. *ahem* 'influential leaders and scholars'.
Some of us believe that God is fictional down to the very root, the bible. Perhaps you meant "fictionalizing Him" more than he originally had been? Kinda like how Marvel Comics continues to churn out stories about Thor?
@CSmith,
I would have thought that by definition theists were the irrational ones in the sense that their beliefs are not based on reason and evidence, but on faith.
Atheism is a rational conclusion based on the evidence that god's don't actually exist. Apart from that, atheists don't hold the market on all rational thought. Just as plenty of religious folks can be quite rational when it comes to economics and decisions about their work, for instance, atheists can hold irrational beliefs in other areas such as politics, and social values. Along with 'liberal' atheists I've also met Republican atheists, pro-NRA atheists even a few atheists who believe that they'll see the Mets win the Series in their lifetimes, so we're not completely immune to wishful thinking. 🙂
It's just when it comes to the one issue of gods being real that we are the ones thinking more rationally. That said, I honestly don't recall ever meeting any atheists who actually believe in ghosts, elves, or astrology so, maybe, healthy skepticism does run higher in us.
The truest faith can only be based on scientific knowledge. You have faith the light will come on when you flick the switch or that your car will start when you turn the key. It doesn't always, but you have a somewhat reliable faith until the failure. Some religious faith is he same. I have faith that I should not kill someone because most likely that will cause big problems for me – not always immediately, but most of the time eventually – even in war – Post Traumatic Stress. I am fairly certain that was proven "scientifically" over time, before someone wrote the law down in any religious book, like many other thoughts in those books that deserve a little more respect than seems to be given. I hope no one is arguing against such religious moral faith.
Its only when faith in something not proven is required, that there is a problem, because that violates the commandment against lying. To swear in something not proven, is nothing less than a lie, no matter how accepted by culture... and such lying faith logic is often the eventual cause of mental illnesses. The point is that if an organization can make you believe one lie, then they can get you accept others. In doing so, I would propose that they then lose their moral authority and that it is that kind of faith in unproven things that is the biggest cause of problems in our time. Churches and other religious organizations cry about people leaving their flocks, while they can't see that it is requiring such delusion that is driving people away.
On the other hand stating that the Bible is the only source of understanding God is a twisted faith in its own right, whether professed by non-atheist or atheist. Open your mind a bit more please.
World Without End – Scientific Pantheism – Philosophic Restore-
"The truest faith can only be based on scientific knowledge."
Well, observation, which can be expanded to trusting that your chair won't crumble under your weight because it hasn't in the twenty years you've owned it. I prefer 'confidence' to faith in this. Thus, because we have evaluated that 99.99% of all gods and goddesses were merely myth I can say with some confidence that the gods we are still worshiping are also far more likely to be myth than real.
"I hope no one is arguing against such religious moral faith."
Only that religion is not the sole source of all morality and ethics. Religious beliefs actually often conflict with them, as in the case with religion's treatment of gays. How often do we hear from Christians that they haven't any bias against gays per se, but are compelled to believe they are sinners because the bible tells them so?
"Its only when faith in something not proven is required, that there is a problem, because that violates the commandment against lying."
Very, very good point! It truly amazes me how often people of faith blatantly misrepresent science and the atheistic position. We could excuse them for being ill educated, but in this information age there really is no excuse for keeping oneself ignorant. No matter how many times you gently correct the misrepresentation that humans evolved from monkeys, for example, or that Hitler was an atheist some other believer, sometimes in the same discussion, will likely also bring it up. I'm starting to believe that they actually know that it is a lie they are giving, but that if it manages to prevent others from listening to us it's a lie for a 'good' cause, and God will forgive them for that. Pretty liberal theology, eh?
"Open your mind a bit more please."
"With evidence we'd believe!" holds true for most atheists, I suspect, whereas very few believers would ever admit that there could possibly be any evidence that would convince them to lose faith. So, who has the more open mind?
Hi NL,
World Without End – Scientific Pantheism – Philosophic Restore-
"The truest faith can only be based on scientific knowledge."
NL- Well, observation, which can be expanded to trusting that your chair won't crumble under your weight because it hasn't in the twenty years you've owned it. I prefer 'confidence' to faith in this. Thus, because we have evaluated that 99.99% of all gods and goddesses were merely myth I can say with some confidence that the gods we are still worshiping are also far more likely to be myth than real.
WORLD: Have you ever noticed that it is faith based on evidence seen, that is the stimulus that drives a scientist to continue experiments in their search to prove something? They don't know for sure that what they're striving to prove is true until they have proven it, but their faith spurs them on. The same is true of many religious laws, though possibly not some of the particular ones that we of this time might take issues with. I too agree there has to be logic and truth behind laws worthy of being followed.
I sense you misunderstand the true meaning of myth though. A myth is a story with a meaning behind it, much the same as Christain parables. The keepers of those myths that you probably have the most issue with, somewhat successfully changed the meaning of the word myth to the word lie... to make their own myths (which they called parables and which were presented more in allegorical than historical form), to in their minds be perceived more as truth... and in God's own poetic justice, now have their cherished tales of perceived morality thrown into the same category by those who make the same efforts at understnding the meanings. That does not however, mean that there was not some truth in the myths, parables or allegories of the past or that something should not be learned from them. They were merely humans trying to make sense of their world as they understood it at the time. Some respect is due the effort, in order to advance our knowledge of the truth today, lest we fall in similar holes.
And by the way, if you've owned a chair for 20 years you may subconciously be confident that you can still sit in it, but if you're like most people you've probably gained a few pounds over the years and your chair has degraded somewhat over the years, so that confidence may not be as valid as you think... making it much the same as the faith you refute. There is nothing wrong with faith based on facts, but we are not always so lucky enough to be able to perceive all the complexities that make up our cherished facts and as a result sometimes our faith/confidence is tested and must be rethought, if we are to obey the commandment "thall shalt not lie". So we all, even scientists, rely on faith/confidence... that sometimes doesn't work out the way we hoped.
WORLD: "I hope no one is arguing against such religious moral faith."
NL: Only that religion is not the sole source of all morality and ethics. Religious beliefs actually often conflict with them, as in the case with religion's treatment of gays. How often do we hear from Christians that they haven't any bias against gays per se, but are compelled to believe they are sinners because the bible tells them so?
WORLD: We have to be careful not to dehumanize groups of people in monolithic stereo types like we seem to do when we use the words Christains or gays or atheists or religious people. It might be good fun for some in order to justify their own beliefs, but it detracts from meaningful discussion at least and leads to genocide eventually at worst. Anyone who has studied the Bible seriously, knows that there are often passages that conflict... unfortunately allowing those who take every word as coming from God, the ability to pick and choose which verses they desire to use for their current needs. Slavery is also accepted in parts of the Bible along with polygamy, genocide and many other things that we might take issue with today. So not all Christains believe as you might think and many true Christains may not even belong to a church. As well, not all true religious people classify theirself as Christains. If I remember correctly Religion comes from a Latin word that means something like relinking – relinking with our perception of God, in my case the Universe, known and unknown. There are also Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, etc, etc. Often we confuse religion with groups of people who perform the same rituals. Those rituals were devised to support meanings, but as you have noted those meanings, morals and ethics, can come from outside as well as inside organized religions – and sometimes once you study all the sects in a religion it really doesn't seem that organized either. It is a bit misleading and uninformed though, to try and belittle the contributions that religions have made towards those moral and ethic goals over the ages. In many ways the organizations have seen that the understanding of morals and ethics have grown and not devolved as they may have. The interactions of various religions and their evolution, including not only Christain evolution but the intereactions between religions leading to more evolved religious thought, have fascinated me for many years. Its only when they refuse to grow in the face of additional revealed truth that they disservice us all.
WORLD: "Its only when faith in something not proven is required, that there is a problem, because that violates the commandment against lying."
NL: Very, very good point! It truly amazes me how often people of faith blatantly misrepresent science and the atheistic position. We could excuse them for being ill educated, but in this information age there really is no excuse for keeping oneself ignorant. No matter how many times you gently correct the misrepresentation that humans evolved from monkeys, for example, or that Hitler was an atheist some other believer, sometimes in the same discussion, will likely also bring it up. I'm starting to believe that they actually know that it is a lie they are giving, but that if it manages to prevent others from listening to us it's a lie for a 'good' cause, and God will forgive them for that. Pretty liberal theology, eh?
WORLD: Yes I agree that sometimes religious groups have devolved into social clubs to be maintained often in order to keep the faithful contributions coming in or family traditions in order, but again not everyone in group should be stereo typed the same way. I've seen ignorance on both sides of the fence. I believe it was Hitler who said people will believe a bigger lie, quicker than they will the little ones and my lengthy study of history leads me to believe that many of his techniques were also learned from years of inquisitions and crusades.
WORLD: "Open your mind a bit more please."
NL: "With evidence we'd believe!" holds true for most atheists, I suspect, whereas very few believers would ever admit that there could possibly be any evidence that would convince them to lose faith. So, who has the more open mind?
WORLD: I'm sure there is evidence behind the true faith of believers of any religion or philosophical group. People just usually don't want to make waves over the other suspect articles of faith, because they fear they will lose the support of the group and that is a terrifying thought for many. Having lived outside such groups for thirty some years now, I can truly appreciate how tough it can be sometimes, so I don't begrudge them of that feeling... but still I am glad my approach gave me the opportunity to make a long "scientific" study of many other religions focusing on their core similarities as opposed to the focus on differences required to maintain group continuity. Perhaps its time we started seeing ourselves as the human group in the wonderful Universe whose every day miracles allow us to exist ... and work from there with all our short comings towards every day improvement. An open mind require an understanding and compassion for the short comings of others as well. It shouldn't be seen as a contest, but as rather for improving the ability to inspire – both self and others as possible.
Hi NL,
I almost forgot. We all sin. That's why Jesus said "Let those of you who have not sinned cast the first stone" when they were starting to stone the woman caught in fornication. It's a shame more people religious and non-religious don't understand the true meaning behind that.
Mr. Chopra has very little apparent understanding of Science: "If so, science will have to account for why the human brain, which lives in the macro world, derives its intelligence from the micro world. Either atoms and molecules are smart, or something makes them smart."
As a neurologist and neuroscientist, it is very clear that we are our brains. Our consciousness is simply a result of the amazing mass of neurons which evolved. Take out a small brain area, and you lose specific functions. Like the ability to understand language. Like the abililty to put down and retrieve memories. There is a man (intials H.M.) who had his his hippocampal areas removed from his brain to treat his epilepsy, about 40 years ago. He wakes up every day as if he is waking up from the surgery. He has not been able to put down a memory since. We are our brains. No reason to hypothesize a "soul" existing outside of our brains. Those who try to say that Science and religion can work together are kidding themselves. Religion is equivalent ot magic. We cannot do Science if we are open to supernatural explanations.
Yes, Chopra's argument is like saying that a computer gets it's computing power from somewhere mysteriously within the atoms of the silicone, iron, and plastic used to manufacture it, and not from the integrated circuits and other large components.
Start trying to reconcile and understand the limitations of your own words and thoughts, about God and Science both. Einstein was right. God is everything; everything understood by us now and beyond. True religion and true science takes everything into account, not just what it thinks it knows – neither are complete in their current forms and most likely never will be due to the limitations of the human mind and its perceptions. Creation and understanding are not finite events. They go on forever and ever... along with destruction and ignorance.
As for quantum physics, perception must be considered as well. Just because we are incapable of understanding or predicting with precision, actions at this infitely small level, does not mean that there are not physical laws being followed. We are not God in its entirity and therefore able to truthfully make such statements. We do not truthfully get to say that just because we don't fully understand, that there are no laws controlling these actions. How self centered and conceited is that?
The fallacy of most of these replies is that the atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it, because that is what many people of religion want to hang on to in the face of ever changing knowledge, but mainly because its so simple and easy to refute such primitive childish concepts of God. That makes such atheists just as lame and simple as those they ridicule; content in their current limited knowledge of what they think is God, instead of working harder to understand what God truly Is. Its almost as lame as thinking that different religions are not trying to understand the same God because their language gives "The Supreme Power" different names. For something to be "The Supreme Power" there can be nothing that exists outside of it, and that includes Science, Religion, Philosophy, Psychology and everything else that we know or don't know – that's Pantheism.
God is and controls everything through laws, some of which we understand, some of which we don't, some of which we thought we did and have been proven wrong with time, and will most likely be proven wrong in the future about some things we think we know now.
We will never truly know all scientific fact or how one should morally act in all situations, but restricting and freezing that knowledge scientifically to just what we know now, or religiously to just what we knew then or in our own little private group (atheist or non-atheist), will only keep both sides eternally from ever getting as close to the truth as they could.
And free will? Yeah, you have free will as to how you will react to situations provided to you. Situations which are not always the results of your own personal actions. There's a bigger picture and you are not all of IT. Judge not lest ye be judged. Of course we all will be, every second of every day, based on our actions, but also of actions of things around us as well. Cause and effect to the infinite power.
So basically, the universe is god. If you wish to define "god" as the physical universe with all of its mysteries that works for me. However, if you assume that there is an intelligent aspect to the universe without any actual data to support it, then that is simply more fantasy. Not saying it couldn't be true, but there could be a thriving civilization of thinking beings living inside the sun as well. Equally likely given we have zero data about either possibility. Atheists, do not simply not believe in a one particular god or another. Atheists do not believe in any god or other ent.ities that exist outside of all objective reality. If evidence of such beings is ever found then 1. It isn't actually outside of our objective reality. 2. If it is polite we might invite it to dinner.
All the hoopla atheists get worked up over with the various religions generally have to do with the fact that many of the believers seem to think that we should all live by their arcane rules.
-
"The fallacy of most of these replies is that the atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it,... instead of working harder to understand what God truly Is."
You talk of changing knowledge, which I can understand with science, it changes all the time with new information, but what has changed about God in the last 2000 years? Has someone discovered something new?
Hi Nonimus – Nothing has ever changed about God, just human ability to fully perceive and understand IT, which depends somewhat on culture, knowledge and a true desire to want to know. We will never quite understand IT in all of IT's wonderful complexity, but that doesn't mean we aren't better off if we keep trying to learn more; instead of acting as if we ourselves are God, like we know it all already, and don't need to discuss or consider it further. Some might call that faith, but others call "faith in things unproven" lying to yourself at least; lying to others if professing; and psychologically damaging (even more so) if insisting that others lie to theirself as well. These resulting att-itudes are rightfully what irritates those who call theirselves atheists... as difficult as it appears to be for them to clearly describe that irritation without their own immature and often times childish intellectual short comings.
Hi MARKINFL "if you as-sume that there is an intelligent aspect to the universe without any actual data to support it, then that is simply more fantasy."
Instead of intelligent, perhaps a similar interchangable word, logical, should be used. The problem isn't with logic not being in the universe... its just that its sometimes not in our heads enough for us to always fully understand. So if you can agree that intelligent and logical ares the same, then yes there is intelligence and logic both in the Universe. If you think of intelligence as the ability to perceive logic, then the universe does that as well, in its constant interaction with its self.
The idea about having to have human like beingS, visable or invisible, manipulate things to prove intelligence, is the underlying fallacy of any argument against an intelligent universe. The Universe, known and unknown, is the Being.... and it operates logically/intelligently beyond our ability to always understand. We need to stop being so conceited, as to think that only a human like being can be intelligent/logical. The Universe is alive and infinitely intelligent/logical beyond our wildest comprehension. No one can take the side of science alone and then try to say that what science describes, is not logical – at least not honestly – and there is no evidence that all the other things beyond what science knows are not logical/intelligent as well. Again, our ignorance doesn't make things we don't know yet or maybe ever, illogical or unintelligent... it just means we're still stupid in some ways.
Everything must be so. Its just that humans that can't understand all of it. Try believing in a God that is objective reality, while understanding that humans are not the infallible judge of that objectivity.
One parting thought in these trying times to stir up some more thought. There is no God but Allah. Allah is the Arabic name for God. So there is no God but God. Now lets take that to its truest level. There is no thing but God. God is all. Within, without, beyond alpha and omega. Otherwise there would be something outside of God's control and God would therefore not be Supreme. There is a verse in the bible that says you can blaspheme against God and the Son, but never against the Holy Ghost. Might that be the spirit that is in everything, or in effect is everything? How many ills of world politics etc. would be solved if we could understand this and apply some compa-ssionate understanding with a dose of humility?
And yes, if we were to do that some of those arcane laws would melt away in sensibility, but we could also see that there are many that still apply. It's a long journey.
@World...,
I'm still trying to reconcile the statement, "...atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it..." with "Nothing has ever changed about God, just human ability to fully perceive and understand IT..."
What is the "limited 2000... year old" concept of God that atheists want to refute and how is it different from the current concept of God. Let me throw out an example, slavery. What about our perception of God's position on slavery has changed? Man's view has definitely changed, but how has God's?
I don't think intelligent and logical are interchangable. The universe behaves/responds logically and rationally, but it does not have intelligence or logic. It is logical but not intelligent.
"... there is no God but God. Now lets take that to its truest level. There is no thing but God." Why is that the "truest" level? I see no reason to change the meaning from 'the one and only God' to 'everything *is* God' and/or 'God *is* everything'.
"Otherwise there would be something outside of God's control and God would therefore not be Supreme." Again, this does not follow. Just because something is considered outside of something else does not mean it is not in control of that thing. The inverse is also true that just because something is within something else does not mean it *is* in control of that thing.
Hi Nonimus,
@World,
I'm still trying to reconcile the statement, "...atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it..." with "Nothing has ever changed about God, just human ability to fully perceive and understand IT..."
What is the "limited 2000... year old" concept of God that atheists want to refute and how is it different from the current concept of God. Let me throw out an example, slavery. What about our perception of God's position on slavery has changed? Man's view has definitely changed, but how has God's?
WORLD:- you hit the nail on the head without realizing it I think. Your rebuttal focuses on our concept of God, not God in It's actuality. Our concept in the Old testament of the Bible on slavery seemed to often have no issue with it. Even in the New Testament there can probably be found verses that can be used by those that still want to justify it. "render unto Ceaser what is Ceasars". But here again we are talking about human perception of God, rather than God. The phrase "childish limited 2000 year old concept" was just a general phrase to describe the way many atheists use "the man in the clouds" and other ancient mytholgical parable like tales, to refute the non-existence of a God, rather than refuting the continuing effort to understand the Ultimate reality of the Universe that most devloped mystics of all religions strive for (the Truth). It's very annoying to see that same ploy used over and over as it pays no respect to those who think in larger terms when considering God. Perhaps we've become to conceitely attached to a God that look like us because we think we were created "in his image", which is mor logical if read as "within his image" – just a little nuance most likely lost in the many translations from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek through Latin, German, French and English etc. How egotistical to think we look like God, since we know form and function are tied to each other and to be made like God would make us equal to God. Perhaps that why so many of us mistakenly think we have a right to destroy God's creation for our own benefit without that creation eventually putting us back in our place.
Nominus: I don't think intelligent and logical are interchangable. The universe behaves/responds logically and rationally, but it does not have intelligence or logic. It is logical but not intelligent.
World: I assume you interpret intelligent to mean intelligent like you. Behaving rationally and logically to stimulus is the definition of intelligent, so I think again the conceit of ego is tying up logic
"... there is no God but God. Now lets take that to its truest level. There is no thing but God."
Nominus: Why is that the "truest" level? I see no reason to change the meaning from 'the one and only God' to 'everything *is* God' and/or 'God *is* everything'.
"Otherwise there would be something outside of God's control and God would therefore not be Supreme." Again, this does not follow. Just because something is considered outside of something else does not mean it is not in control of that thing. The inverse is also true that just because something is within something else does not mean it *is* in control of that thing.
World: You're getting bogged down in Western philosophical and scientific ideas of defining things by splitting them down to their lowest levels, but then failing to put them together again and see the whole ineteraction of the one body that is the Universe. we do the same thing in medicine concerning specialists unfortunately to a degree. Thank God we haven't let it blind us into thinking we can cure measles by surgical removal. Instead we back up a bit and look at the wider picture and cure the cause. God is like that. We have to back up a bit more to gain a fuller understanding. Of course everyone has the right to live with their limited concepts so long as it fits their needs. They don't however have the right to insist other use the same limitation when they have seen other evidence that they are insufficient for understanding the truth they need to better survive. I probably want to say more, but I have to go help my wife with her treatments for cancer where something smaller than her and inside is trying to control her and we are seeking to put things back in balance.
February 16, 2011 at 4:35 pm
@World,
Well, where to begin...
"a general phrase to describe the way many atheists use 'the man in the clouds'... rather than refuting the continuing effort to understand the Ultimate reality of the Universe that most devloped mystics of all religions strive for (the Truth)."
The "man in the clouds" version is used because that seems to be the most common one described by believers and many 'scriptures', such as the Bible and Quran(sp?).
If you have another concept of the "Ultimate reality" or "the Truth" then present it. Although, I'm sure many believers will disagree with whatever you present regardless of how "developed" the "mystics" are that came up with it.
My interpretation of intelligent is not necessarily at the level of human intelligence but is on the same spectrum, for example many animals display intelligence but at varying degrees. Also, I guess it is my own fault for the terms I chose, but by "behaving rationally," I meant in the sense of physical reactions being predicatable. Objects collide and react according to logical rules or laws that we can potentially learn and describe. That being said the definition of intelligent is not 'behaving rationally to stimulus.' Most definitions I'm seeing involve something like, "having the faculty of reasoning and understanding" or "having or indicating an understanding of the nature and consequences of an act or decision," which the universe in general does not display.
Perhaps I was getting "bogged down" in scientific ideas, that being the best way that man has found to learn about the world he finds himself in, but let's not digress into epistomology. You mentioned the "truest level" of God. What do you mean by that and how did you determimed which level was 'truest'?
Sorry to hear about your wife and I hope she is getting well. I also hope that her treatments medical and not mystical.
This will take a few posts until I find the offensive word that probably isn't:
Hi Nonimus,
I hope I am wrong, but I suspect your beliefs are just as etched in stone and limited by pride in your self, group and culture, as perhaps those you may take issue with. But of course that may be my ignorance, so apologies if wrong.
Not all believers are the hard line fundementalists battling to maintain the most sophmoric understandings of religions, philosophies and politics....... but the extreme fringes pitted against each other, do make the best and initially the most entertaining fights...though anyone with half a brain probably tires of them much sooner than politicians etc. might think they do. I had to take a couple months break after my last involvement.
Perhaps its the methods used to discuss these subjects, that brings those extreme "opposite thought pattern" kinds of people... out of the wood works with a vengenge, leading to a misleading perspective that they are the most common. Same game is played in politics to much of our loss.
Those who take a more objective realistic understanding, usually just stand back and watch the fringes tear each other apart, so long as it doesn't affect them. I'm just getting a little old and tired of all the wasted energy...folks just brushing over the surfaces of subjects while they more or less try to shout each other down. I think I've seen the same pros and cons over and over for months and I know they probably went on and on long before I started looking.
I would like to say perhaps a study of the higher versions of Eastern religions might help such perceptions, but I learned it takes quite a while to undertake such studies and most people will not make the effort... content in what they already "know". I also learned the hard way, that it is easier to see the higher ideals in positive summaries of someone else's relgion, if that is what you are looking for... than what the common people usually practicing those same religions often see. Then when you turn around and look closer at those you are familiar with, you can see the same higher and lower thoughts in the traditions closer to home, that you missed before when they were oppressively crammed down your throat. Note I said there are higher and lower understandings. Many religious texts are written with tales of magic and exageration to draw people in so they eventually get down to the deeper meanings and more life useful stuff. Unfortunately some come to the show ill equiped and some others like to keep them that way.
I've been there and understand that part of it very well. I was raised with somewhat 19th or even 18th or 17th century back woods Christain values, in suburban America in the 1960's. Talk about feeling out of joint with the world. Maybe joint was the wrong word considering the 60's.
Anyway, those with limited time or mind for understanding... will get out of anything... what they put into it... and unfortunately much of the world just has the time to focus on surviving and don't want to risk the security of their little group to look outside the box for more useful meaning, unless they are forced to. And when you attack someones security mechanisms they will defend them to the death, unfortunately as we have learned recently, even if they don't fully understand what they are fighting for. That leads to long distance comedy, and up close tragedy unfortunately.
So I know I got off track a bit, but what I was trying to say is there are more religious books than just the Bible and Koran, and even the followers of those two can't make up their mind what the most important teachings of them are. There are so so many sects of all religions it boogles the mind. So to talk about religious people as if they are all just some scary fundementalist monolith is just so ingenuous. If ever there were an oxymoron... its the phrase "Organized Religion".
NOMINUS: If you have another concept of the "Ultimate reality" or "the Truth" then present it. Although, I'm sure many believers will disagree with whatever you present regardless of how "developed" the "mystics" are that came up with it.
WORLD: Its not up to me to do the presenting to the believers...Ultimate realitiy and the truth are already presenting...eternally... all around them, deep within them and way beyond any point in or out of them that we will ever see or know. There is nothing supernatural... just things beyond what the average dummies perceive. Today's scientists would have been considered magicians or mystics by people of the past. Heck, even every day people today live magical and mystical lives compared to those in the past not even 30 or 40 years ago, much less those in ancient times. Its all relevant. Things go so much deeper, but just try considering all the miracles at the atomic level that had to take place over millions of years to result in the miracle that eventually became you. Shouldn't that make you feel special enough without thinking you're gonna live forever. How can we not marvel and wonder at what is without expecting everthing more? The way we make sense of all of these things is through science, philosophy and psychology all of which should be reflected in religion for any kind of psychological sensibility to exist in a society. The evolution I love the most is the evolution of human thought to better understand these things that have been provided to us, so we can live better lives... and all true believers feel the same, though they are often limited by their own experiences in various ways – culture, education, social groups, life experiences. Rarely are any two lives ever very similar when looked at closely, so its only natural, not supernatural, that people would react in different ways based on those life experiences. So we all should cut each other some slack. I know, easier said than done. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
NOMINUS: My interpretation of intelligent is not necessarily at the level of human intelligence but is on the same spectrum, for example many animals display intelligence but at varying degrees. Also, I guess it is my own fault for the terms I chose, but by "behaving rationally," I meant in the sense of physical reactions being predicatable. Objects collide and react according to logical rules or laws that we can potentially learn and describe. That being said the definition of intelligent is not 'behaving rationally to stimulus.' Most definitions I'm seeing involve something like, "having the faculty of reasoning and understanding" or "having or indicating an understanding of the nature and consequences of an act or decision," which the universe in general does not display.
WORLD: Correct again though I'm still not sure you're realizing it yet. There are varying degrees of logical action and reaction from the sub-atomic to the galactical and beyond. Reasoning and understanding and determinig consequences are based on logic and the universe does act logically, otherwise scientists would see nothing but chaos – and forget what those quantum physics interpreters might say about the universe being in chaos just because they can'y measure things consistently at the sub-atomic level. That just means they haven't been smart enough to figure it out yet. Kind of like a first grader taking a test on calculus and saying we'll never know, its just all chaos. I choose infinite relativity, cause and effect, and logic instead... as that has held true in every thing else until now. We only get confused when the conditions are so complex we can't wrap our tiny minds around them. Science indicates that the earth itself is a self regulating or-ganism based on logical principles. We're just bees in the hive so to speak. No one has the free will to select only the conditions they will be faced with and our reactions are all based only on past experience conciously or unconciously. The same experiences led to eternal evolution as well as eternal destruction. Intelligence exists in every act of self preservation as well as the universe knowing when its a better time time to reconfigure. All that being said, we can't ignore our cultural experience either.... regarding science , philosophy, psychology and religion etc. We need to learn from them and not just say throw everything out and start over... but rather how do we go forward from here understanding that there are many who will evolve slower or differently than others. How can we best morally bring them along?
NOMINUS: Perhaps I was getting "bogged down" in scientific ideas, that being the best way that man has found to learn about the world he finds himself in, but let's not digress into epistomology. You mentioned the "truest level" of God. What do you mean by that and how did you determimed which level was 'truest'?
WORLD: God is supreme. There is no God but God. One supreme God controlling everything means God is everything. If I control something, really control it, then it is a part of me. I don't think God is out there somewhere, but right here and now and forever and ever. This does not do away with morality or ethics, as cause and effect are always at work. You might get away with something for a while but eventually karma happens, so this idea of God should not be a problem with moral issues... and the question about good and bad things is and always has been subjective relativity. It might be bad to lie, but not in World War 2 if you are hiding people in your basement and the SS ask if they're there.
NOMINUS: Sorry to hear about your wife and I hope she is getting well. I also hope that her treatments medical and not mystical.
WORLD: Never doubt the psychology of healing, but yes we do live in the modern world where our psychology has also taught us to trust science and doctors....insurance companies and profit motives are another subject. Thanks for the thoughts and considering mine too.
@World,
Sorry I didn’t reply sooner. I’ll try to keep this brief and to the point.
You originally made the claim that, “…atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it…instead of working harder to understand what God truly Is.” You may claim to know what “God truly is” but that makes you no different than anyone else here and your argument no more convincing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but one thing you seem to be basing this pantheistic concept of the “true” God on the idea that in order to “really” control something it must be a part of/contained within the one doing the controlling. Yet, you have not shown any reason to think that is true. Or, in fact that God does “really” control everything all the time. Even with the assertion that control equals ident.ity, or to control something completely it must be a part of you and you it and therefore the controllers ident.ity includes that which is controlled, that still does not mean that God would need/want/be able to control and identify with everything at the same time or at any time since some supposed creation event. And you have not shown in fact that any God, “true” or not, actually exists or is even necessary for that matter. Your claims that “…atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it…” seems to just be a red-herring or ad hominem targeting atheists.
Another thing you seem to base this “true” God concept on is that the universe is intelligent, but you have yet to show that is the case either. Other than equivocating on the terms logical and intelligent, you said, “Its not up to me to do the presenting…” “Ultimate realitiy [is] already presenting...eternally... all around…“
If you can’t or won’t present reasons why one should believe a claim, then is it a surprise when no one does?
Al-Haaqqa sura 69:
But nay! I swear by all that ye see (38) And all that ye see not (39) That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger. (40) It is not poet's speech – little is it that ye believe! (41) Nor diviner's speech – little is it that ye remember! (42) It is a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. (43) And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, (44) We assuredly had taken him by the right hand (45) And then severed his life-artery, (46) And not one of you could have held Us off from him. (47) And lo! it is a warrant unto those who ward off (evil). (48) And lo! We know that some among you will deny (it). (49) And lo! it is indeed an anguish for the disbelievers. (50) And lo! it is absolute truth. (51) So glorify the name of thy Tremendous Lord. (52).
Nonimus
@World,
Sorry I didn’t reply sooner. I’ll try to keep this brief and to the point.
You originally made the claim that, “…atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it…instead of working harder to understand what God truly Is.” You may claim to know what “God truly is” but that makes you no different than anyone else here and your argument no more convincing.
WORLD: God is not brief and to the point, so perhaps that is why some do not understand. IT is not a 30 second commercial. Only God is fully capable of understanding the full extent of GOD's full Nature. I never claimed to know that full extent of what God truly is, only that we should strive to know that as much as possible...but no human is capable of knowing that fully or they would be God. I did not inevent the term Pantheist... or the belief that the only true God worth calling God, would have to be the Supreme Monotheistic Power, and that to be the Supreme Power nothing could exist outside of it. Try not to think of God as a human king kind of thing, but really really really big and really, really, really small. The concept is not something I just made up. It's embedded in the religious texts and life if you look close enough. Since I didn't invent the word pantheist, I doubt no one else believes it.
NOMINUS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but one thing you seem to be basing this pantheistic concept of the “true” God on the idea that in order to “really” control something it must be a part of/contained within the one doing the controlling. Yet, you have not shown any reason to think that is true. Or, in fact that God does “really” control everything all the time.
WORLD: It's been shown to you, all around you and in you, for your whole life, if you were paying attention close enough, especially in science and history and social cla-sses, but also outside of them as well. Try to imagine God as Nature, but not just the Nature that we know, all the things we have deemed as supernatural throughout the ages as well. What's said to be supernatural, was nothing more than natural law, that we did not understand at the time. People fly today. It would have been thought to be supernatural not more than a couple hundred years ago if someone witnessed it. The healings of Jesus and others "supernatural" claims ages ago... if they occurred as claimed and weren't just magic tricks added to the story to get folks attention to hear the real message of importance... were, possibly nothing more than the medicine we know now or maybe even in the future. There is nothing Supernatural, only things beyond man's current understanding.
You can argue against it with all your might, but a Supreme God that is Nature, what we know of it and what we don't, controls everything by NATURAL Law... and don't confuse that with just what humans understand of natural law. If you don't believe it controls you because you are so special, please, go to the top of the tallest building without a parachute or any other means to fly or defy gravity, jump off and try to change your destined death with your free will, because you see yourself as outside that power and totally in control of your own fate. Please don't do that, as we know what the result would be, without proof. Gotcha. Moral and ethical laws are the same though we have also sometimes misunderstood them, due to our lack of knowledge and sometimes don't perceive all the conditions fully, to do the right thing.
NOMINUS: Even with the assertion that control equals ident.ity, or to control something completely it must be a part of you and you it and therefore the controllers ident.ity includes that which is controlled, that still does not mean that God would need/want/be able to control and identify with everything at the same time or at any time since some supposed creation event.
WORLD: Says who? NOMINUS? It think you're still seeing God as a creature like yourself or maybe slightly more impressive but not quite infinitely large and infinitely small enough to truly make sense. If all you have is a hammer...you fix everything with a hammer. If all you've argued against was incorrect, it sounds like this idea scares you a bit, because you can't use your usual hammer.
Creation didn't just happen at some distant point in past history and destruction won't happen at some fixed point in the future. Creation and destruction happen eternally and it truly isn't creation or destruction either... just recombination of atomic matter, following naturally logical laws. Again thats beyond our ability to instantaneously comprehend due the extreme complexities involved on the atomic level........considering everything interacting by cause and effect...but science has proven it.
NOMINUS: And you have not shown in fact that any God, “true” or not, actually exists or is even necessary for that matter. Your claims that “…atheists want to take a limited 2000 or so year old childish concept of God and refute it…” seems to just be a red-herring or ad hominem targeting atheists.
WORLD: Humans have tried to understand the true Nature of things forever and how they control us and how we should act
to be properly in communion with them... and those concepts have been updated continually by those in tune or desiring to better understand such concepts, that were once explained by God in human form. Apparently some have not progressed beyond that concept.
So take a small childish concept of God who might act just like you in every situation or whatever limited concept you desire, if that is all you are capable of conceiving, and refute it to your heart's content...but atheists need to stop targeting all religious people with the red herring of being restricted by such childish non-sense.
How can everything around you and within you, that worked billions of years to get to the wonderful miracle that you are, and works to sustain you every day "not be necessary"? What kind of non-sense is that?...and that's just considering the hard science part. How much of a chance would you have of being here without the social science parts of philosophy, psychology, morals and ethics that religion provided or not, through the centuries of social interactions... and before you answer, read the rest of my posts below and above. You'll see I have just as much issue with the limited version of religions... both that atheist refute and that many non-aetheists insist we believe.
NOMINUS: Another thing you seem to base this “true” God concept on is that the universe is intelligent, but you have yet to show that is the case either. Other than equivocating on the terms logical and intelligent, you said, “Its not up to me to do the presenting…” “Ultimate realitiy [is] already presenting...eternally... all around…“
If you can’t or won’t present reasons why one should believe a claim, then is it a surprise when no one does?
WORLD: And you have yet to prove the Universe is not intelligent, only that you can't understand that it would be... or even understand the use of some words relative to being or showing intelligence. Since I have no idea of your current knowledge level and you seem incapable of understanding these sensible concepts, I'm not sure anything I could say would convince you until you've learned a lot more.
If you prefer to see chaos, and not understand that its only your inability to understand... and not try to make an effort to understand... then you will have to be stuck with chaos. Algeb-ra or chemistry is chaos to first graders, but they still exist. Understanding the relativity of cause and effect in everything, apparently is chaos to others, but it still exists.
This is why religious texts are often written on many levels. Magic and fantastic stories to draw the childish minds in, to hopefully eventually get them to the deeper meanings and understandings, for those capable of understanding.
Unfortunately, so many can only grasp or reject the childish level. They never get beyond them to the deeper meanings, both in science and religion. Its like saying, I learned addition and it didn't help me solve all my mathmatical problems... so now I don't believe in it. Duh. Did you try advancing to subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. etc.? No? Hmmm?
NOMINUS: If you can’t or won’t present reasons why one should believe a claim, then is it a surprise when no one does?
WORLD: Is your last question quoting Pontius Pilate or the High Priest? Sounds familiar. Again, I can't explain the scientific and religious and philosophic and historical knowledge I've learned in more than half a century, in a few lines I have talked in generalities about them and that didn't seem to suffice. Please read the rest of my posts here and ask again if you have specific non-open ended questions. I can't provide the meaning of life. Give me some reasons why you think Natural Law, what we know and don't know, isn't God and indeed the only God Supreme... and maybe we can start from there if the posts don't help.
Hi World (WE-SP-PR),
NONIMUS: The patronizing explainations aside, I will try to answer the questions you posed.
WORLD: Says who? NOMINUS?
NONIMUS: That is what I’ve been asking you. You make claims about the nature of God without backing them up with logic or evidence. You make judgements of other viewpoints being “childish” versions of God without any basis for making that distinction. You say God is in and in control of everything and therefore/also(?) the universe is intelligent. Although I phrased it differently, I asked, ‘says who?’
Regardless, in response to your “Says who,” I say that logic says. If complete control means ident.ity, that does not imply that complete control is needed or necessary forever and at all times. Imagine something that has ulitimate control of a pre-big bang universe, a singularity. It should be possible, as imagined, for such a thing to release control of said universe and allow it to expand and develop on its own. That is but one imaginable scenario that would not need an active present God. Take that one step further and imagine that singularities can be produced from something like a quantum foam and no God is necessary.
WORLD: How can everything around you and within you, that worked billions of years to get to the wonderful miracle that you are, and works to sustain you every day "not be necessary"? What kind of non-sense is that?
NONIMUS: I didn’t say that everything around me wasn’t necessary. I said you have not shown that a God is necessary. Obviously, for me to exist as I am requires a material universe with certain physical laws with enough time and the right conditions for life to begin and evolution to occur, but unless God is defined as the mindless action-reaction of physical laws, then I don’t see the necessity for a God. And, if God is defined that way then there is no distinction between God and the common understanding of science and therefore no need for the term God.
WORLD: Is your last question quoting Pontius Pilate or the High Priest?
NONIMUS: I’m not aware of anyone saying that previously, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I had seen something similar before and just don’t remember where.
WORLD: Please read the rest of my posts here and ask again if you have specific non-open ended questions. I can't provide the meaning of life. Give me some reasons why you think Natural Law, what we know and don't know, isn't God and indeed the only God Supreme... and maybe we can start from there if the posts don't help.
NONIMUS: Although not a question per se, you ask for a response.
Does the carbon atom in the period on the period key of your keyboard know my thoughts or fate? Can I know it’s thoughts or fate?
Can God make the electron not follow the laws of physics?
Does the Universe/God understand all the consequences of the impending collision (3-5 billion years) between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies?
If the answer to these questions was no, then what is the distinction between God and science?
{open-ended, sorry. Don’t answer this one:} If any answer is yes, why do you think that is so?
If you consider the belief in “the man in the clouds” God to be childish and consider the belief in a Pantheistic God to be “think[ing] in larger terms,” or more “developed,” then can you not understand the idea that belief in any God is considered childish? The physical laws, known and unknown, support the universe as we understand it without imagining any type of Supreme ent.ity/consciousness/universe-is-god.
{open-ended version:} Why is God necessary at all?
In my response above I described a pre-big bang God, I believe this is more of a pandeist concept as opposed to pantheist, but is that not possible? Or, are you claiming that the laws of physics are the active decision/volition of the God/Universe?
Are these specific and closed-ended enough?
You asked, if I paraphrased it correctly, ‘Why is Natural Law not God?’ If by “natural law” you mean physical laws as in, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law linked from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law_(disambiguation) since you didn’t provide a definition, then I would say that there is no evidence of consciousness, understanding, affection, motivation, cognition, or volition behind the movements and properties of the universe as a whole or in part, other than in the discrete lifeforms that have the biological support systems proportional to their level of these attributes or functions.
Alternatively, if by “God” you mean just the physical laws, known and unknown, then I would agree, with the minor exception of the term God. If God is the ‘all of and nothing but’ the physical laws, then calling it God is unecessary misapproprtation of a common term.
NOMINUS – replies near end – was lastpage at February 22, 2011 at 6:43 am ....late niter typos and all
Free Will? Wasn't it John Calvin that said mankind has it, but his destiny is predtermined by God?
Eric G: You have not read The Science of the Soul so how can you say that the evidence is not valid. It is not scientifically appropriate to dismiss evidence without looking at it first.
Bob: It is not inconsistent for an omnipotent God to create creatures with free will. Free will is what it means to be created "in the image of God."
More as-sumptions and speculation. Now, you are claiming to know what the contents of my library are. I have given you three opportunities to validate your statements. You are either unable or refuse to do so. The evidence you presented is not verifiable, it is speculation. If you cannot defend your position in an honest and mature manner, please refrain from further posts. The adults are talking now.
It's pretty simple. Science proves by fact. Religion can't prove anything. That's why they're a million religions and only one fact. Why also does no other part of our life use belief as a valid answer? Our Judicial system, our society, our government. Try to live in everyday life without using science and experience and tell God to protect and guide you through life and see how far you get. Oh, and if he doesn't tell you to do anything you do nothing. Don't read into anything or say he would want me to do……, or he works in mysterious ways thing. Tell him you are doing an experiment and need hard facts.
please explain to me how science proves anything. Science is based entirely on observation and the application of logic and mathematics to those observations. for centuries man believed that the earth revolved aroung the sun. i am betting that you still do. but then a man published an article about a hundred years ago which said that it is all relative. The man was Albert Einstien and the idea he proposed is the theory of relativity (though this is a much simplified explanation of the theory).
You’re right. Science is based entirely on observation and the application of logic and mathematics to observations. Then proven later as fact or not. Where Religion is based on what someone stated a long time ago and cannot be changed. Science evolves with human knowledge. Where Religion is stuck however many years ago in a book that someone said somebody else said, and then was translated a bunch of times.
Science has the flexibility of change. It can be wrong and then corrected. Religion has a book of rules, which once it is written down it can't be changed.
First lets make it clear that Deepak Chopra is not, has never been, and never will be a scientist. He is a TV personality making money by pushing science gabble. Just as an astrologer.
As for the question, no science and religion do not mix. It is a marvel of the flexibility of the human mind than for most people it is capable to accommodate such coexistence.
Eric G: The book The Science of the Soul also presents evidence of free will that your dog does not have.
What is interesting is that if you believe in the bible, you cannot, by definition have free will if there is an omnipotent, omniscient God who created you. Cheers!
The evidence presented is theory which is only supported by more speculation. The evidence is not verifiable because it is not based in fact. I would give you partial credit if you listed this book as a philisophical reference, but not a scientific one.
Please try harder.
Eric G: It sounds like you believe you do not have free will and are a robot. Is that what you believe? It also sounds like you agree that if you do have free will, then you have something that is "non-natural."
Sorry, more logical flaws. You are speculating again. Please provide verifiable evidence to support your definition of "free will". Or, you can continue to loose credibility by assigning other derogatory terms to those who disagree with you.
As for your question, unfortunately I cannot remember who said it, but one of my favorite quotes about "free will" is "Of course I have free will. I have no other choice."
eric g. I'm not sure who you are quoting but you sort of have a point. free will and determinism become very blurred in both science and religion when we look at them objectively. C. S. Lewis (a prominent Christian author and thinker of the 1900s) said that he could see no difference between the two. A good way of looking at this is to study quantum mechanics. It is a topic that no one can truly claim to completely understand but is describes the universe as a probability distribution. Thus all of the rest of science which people claim determines our every thought and actions is based entirely on the "choices" of the atomic and subatomic particles. Some claim that the results require a conciousness to exist in order for them to be exist themselves. It is all quite complex and i cannot do it justice as i do not fully understand it myself.
This brings to mind a quote by Julia Sweeny: "Deepak Chopra is full of sh_t!"
Estevan: The post to HotAirAce is also for you since you are a rational and logical person.
HotAirAce: Science cannot logically use causes and correlations to explain something (free will) which by definition is the making of choices that are not due to causes and correlations. That logic will not change. It is not a question of waiting for future evidence. See the book The Science of the Soul for written statements by prominent scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, Charles Darwin and others. If science can explain choices based on causes and correlations then they would not be free. Free will is evidence that humans have something "non-natural" or what we refer to as spiritual. Some call it a soul.
Sorry Bill, your post is logically flawed. Your definition of "free will" is speculative. You then claim fact by logical reasoning using references that cannot be verified.
Using your example, my dog has the same level of "free will" that you assign to humans.
In the future, if you are going to try to use "logic" as part of your argument, make sure your points are accurate. If not, you will be called out on them.
I agree that "man" has free will – that man can do anything we want, within the bounds of physics and the resources available to us. My definition of free will does not require, and I adamantly assert that none exist, a god or a soul. Gods and souls are concepts made up by man to explain things they did/do not understand or were/are afraid of. Time for everyone to let go of their childish tribal myths and stop clutching at new ones even if they are called new science as yapped on about by Dr. WooWoo.
Science and religion have always been friends. It takes just as much faith to believe in a God created universe as it does to believe the universe and all it's order was created from an explosion of something smaller than the tip of a pin. The question is which belief better serves you in your life and at the same time serves the greater good? Live with Intention, DrBillToth.com/blog
No Dr. Bill the question is "who's right?"
Why would I want to believe something that is untrue just because I think it might serve me better in life? There either is a god or gods are there isn't. It can't be both. As a rational human being I try, as best can in my limited capacity, to know the truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Religious people will almost always think that their beliefs serves the greater good – even if it is obvious to everyone else that their belief is horribly twisted. The suicide bombers believe they are serving the greater good. Those who advocate not using condoms despite an explosion in AIDS think they are serving the greater good. The fundies who let their children die because they don't want medicine to heal them think they are serving the greater good. So it is a big resounding NO. People should not continue believing mindlessly in myths and fairy tales which they "believe" serves the greater good. People should seek out the truth even though it might contradict their beliefs and then work with the information they gain...so far there is no concrete evidence to support the existence of the supernatural and therefore the default position should NOT be "since we can't prove or disprove the existence of god as of yet I will therefore choose to believe in god despite the absence of evidence".
Dr Bill Toth
"It takes just as much faith to believe in a God created universe as it does to believe the universe and all it's order was created from an explosion of something smaller than the tip of a pin."
Doctor, eh? If you are a medical doctor do you have confidence that the medicine you prescribe, or the surgery you suggest works for patients? Confidence built through years of training and practice, and confidence in the healing powers of the medicines and surgical procedures? Do you practice medicine with confidence born from evidence that what you are doing actually works, or do you not trust the science behind these things and rely on your faith? Science is science, and if you trust medical science because you know it's based on evidence then why choose to mistrust another branch of science based on evidence entirely?
Why don't you do some research as to how "friendly" religion was to scientists like Galelio. It does not require faith to believe in science, it only requires an understanding of the evidence presented to support a theory. You are making an argument from ignorance. Your lack of capacity to do the math does not invalidate the evidence.
I grew up in the Orthodox Jewish community, the son of a medical professional and a PhD-level chemist. Science was as welcome in our house as faith; the two were specifically NOT thought to be mutually exclusive, but rather complementary. This may have something to do with the rabbinical notion that the Torah (Bible) is absolutely NOT literal, but is rather composed specifically to be read in a multifaceted way; it may have had something to do with Judaism as, above, a practical religion; it may have been because, as scientists, my parents are able to think critically about what they were taught in the arenas of both faith and science. Whatever the case may be, I'm glad that I wasn't indoctrinated into a way of thinking so narrow as to deny either the truths we can see with our eyes, or the callings we feel in our hearts.
Very valid points.
a world without dogmatic religion is coming, but not for many generations. the best way to enact true social change is through education. This is why the religious fundies keep cutting education money, or use private "schools" (really just a church) or worse, home school.
grow up and leave your imaginary friend in the past
They tried that in soviet Russia (and a number of other places). It didn't end well.
CSmith-
Their faulty economic policies and total disregard for what their scientists were telling them played no part in their downfall, I suppose?
I presume you are talking about Christianity which is now over two thousand years old. Judaism is even older so don't hold you breath waiting for an end to "dogmatic religion". Education is where you find it but you have to look for it and pursue it. My kid was failing in the Public school system, yet after being Home Schooled he received one of the highest GED scores in the country and is going to college next. Parents being responsible for educating their children is not just for religious fanatics any more. It is the best choice. The Public Schools have failed their primary function. If you can afford Private School,secular or not, it is usually a better choice than the lowest common denominator.
Southern Celt-
You're right in that Christianity and other religions aren't likely to disappear any time soon, but we can all hope that the kinder, less judgmental, more tolerant varieties will eventually supplant the awful ones that presently plague us, right?
Science and Spirituality can and should work together for the greater good of all life forms. As long as Science seeks only material evidences for all unanswered questions, it nevertheless would never be able to progress much. Science 'never' would be able to explain the 'state of the human condition' and the inequalities in the 'quality of life'.
Akin to life forms maintaining their body temperatures, the celestial objects like the sun and the stars do maintain their temperatures for eons in time. Would not that phenomenon qualify them to be living beings!?
You may want to read http://www.scribd.com/doc/48025836/Karma-in-Christianity-Introduction for more debate on the subject.
Karmic Christian-
"Science 'never' would be able to explain the 'state of the human condition' and the inequalities in the 'quality of life'."
Lucky for us that we have philosophy, art, poetry, dance and music to explore all of the things that science cannot, and all without the mumbo jumbo that religion has attached to it.
Well said NL.
NL, you think philosophy, art, poetry, dance and music are without 'mumbo jumbo'? Really? They're basically PURE mumbo jumbo. At least religion can make an honest claim to fact (whether it's an accurate claim or not is another issue).
CSmith-
You find no value in philosophy, art, poetry, dance and music? You don't believe that they reflect any part of what it is to be human? What an uncultured existence you must lead. Tell me, does anything reach you on an emotional level?
@Karmic Christian,
"Akin to life forms maintaining their body temperatures, the celestial objects like the sun and the stars do maintain their temperatures for eons in time. Would not that phenomenon qualify them to be living beings!?"
No, it wouldn't. Suns and stars maintain a range of temperatures strictly due to a equilibrium between the outward pressure of the energy from nuclear fusion and the inward pressure of gravity. That is why the primary determinate of the temperature and color of the sun or a star is it's mass.
Stars are basically an open fire, not a living being.
So sad that so many people are so ingnorant of what evolution is and what science is that they can post some of the posts they post here. I will not try to correct them- if our school system and popular press cant educate them, I cant either. I will just repeat one quote from Albert Einstei: Religion without Science is Blind
Sceince without Religion is Lame
Einstein was a pantheist in that to him God was not a personal god but the Universe. He believed that the whole of the universe, unthinking and unguided, was in and of itself a god. But he most certainly did not believe in a personal god like the Christian god.
Albert Einstein: "I, like God, do not play dice or games of chance."
Neils Bohr: "Albert, stop telling God what to do."
CSmith-
Ah, no!
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." Albert Einstein
Science and Spirituality, together makes life holistic.
One probes the outer world and the other inner world. One expands the horison of mind and the other of heart.
When we try to explore the ultimate reality, we find, at the finer levels , they complement and enrich life.
Having and being, becomes one . Always active present, and life functions as timeless movement in love.
That was total gibberish.
Wow. That sounds like the "poetry" I used to write when I was 14. It was lame, unoriginal, and used to pick up girls.
I can't help but picture one of those lame artist college types sitting outside under a tree strumming a bad tune on a guitar trying to impress the women.
Perhaps some mind-enhancing drugs are needed to appreciate what he's trying to say. I use to 'get' Augustine, Aquinas, and the bible in college too. I haven't had anything stronger than coffee since I became an atheist. Coincidence? I think not.
AmazingSteve. Did you really just say I could find the proof for evolution on Wikipedia? Too funny, Wikipedia has come a long way.
you may want to go look up evolution and like topics on wikipedia. While wikipedia does not contain all of the facts it is a very good place to start. It is very helpful as a strating point for understanding most topics and it is one of the best places to find a good list of often accurate citations for further and more indepth understanding. While it is true that you should never cite wikipedia as a good and reputable source I must admit that as a scientist i use it all the time as a good starting point for topics that i need a refresher on or which i am unfamilliar with and need a good starting point.
Why discuss evolution (which presumably happened millions of years ago) when the evidence of free will and spirituality is all around us? As described in the book The Science of the Soul, which quotes the written statements of many prominent scientists, science cannot use causes and correlations to explain something (free will) which by definition is the ability to make choices not based on causes and correlations. Thus, the source of free will is something "non-natural" which we also refer to as spiritual.
The only evidence for spirituality is manmade tribal mythology. There is no need to credit imaginery supernatural beings with what you call free will. If we do not know the exact cause of something, we do not have to credit a god – it's OK to say "we don't know – yet!"
"Why discuss evolution (which presumably happened millions of years ago) "
Huh?
Ever wonder why weeds become resistant to herbicides or insects to pesticides or bacteria to antibiotics?
Because evolution is happening right now, in the fields in our hospitals and in your body. Evolution continues today for every living population of organisms.
Bill the Science Guy: I hereby charge you with misrepresentation! Change your name to Bill the Guy as you quite obviously have no understanding of what science is or how it works.
You're stupid. All choices are governed by stimuli in the environment. All behaviors have a cause and a maintaining or a punishing consequence. Oh yeah, you probably wouldn't understand that because you're stupid.
Actually justaperson, Bill is right. When we look at the very basis of all science (that is quantum physics and the math which underlies it) we see that everything truly is governed by randomness and probabilities, not by determinism.
Furthermore, what realy is science other than a belief? Science does not prove anything. I spent a year researching a 96 basepair region of the non-coding region of a gene in an attempt to demonstrate its supposed enhancer properties on that gene. At the conclusion of that year all of my data indicated that that very small might demonstratrate the properties we had initially supposed but that we could not be certain and we definitely could not determine exactly where the binding factors which cause the enhancement bind. That is the nature of science, slow progress towards more accurate suppositions. Unfortunately, the common man does not realize this and supposes that science can prove things.
You may be a self proclaimed "Science Guy" but your words suggest you are not acquainted with the subject. Human evolution is still just a theory, Show me the Missing Link, or a new capability in humans not attributed to diet, or any other empirical evidence to support your theory if you want it accepted. As for Free Will, we are all born with an innate knowledge of the Natural Law, and free will is nothing more than that knowledge plus our education and experiences since then. Eastern philosophy only works on the poorly educated in the Western Hemisphere.
Southern Celt-
"Show me the Missing Link"
Ah, you mean transitional fossils, right? The many, many, many fossils that show the slow, gradual change from one species to another we call evolution. I see where you are having difficulty; you are trying to pull one individual frame out of a two hour movie that you can say is where the beginning ends and the end begins. Try watching the whole movie all the way through and concentrate on the story being told instead. It makes better sense that way.