Physics and God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DapperDrake

The purpose of anything is only from a certain point of view. Purpose is about meaning as you say and meaning is subjective.
From my perspective the purpose of me going to work is to be paid, from my employers perspective the purpose of me going to work is to provide a service to our customers, to the government the purpose of me going to work is to perpetuate the economy etc..
Things have purpose when someone believes that they have purpose. The issue here is was the universe created? or did it just happen. I'm not sure we can answer that with just discussion.

---

I'm not sure we can ever answer with discussion or any other means.. but it is sure fun to discuss... ;)

I think there are a couple points to I would like to make. First, as far as scientific research is concerned 100% of the world's scientists could believe in whatever form of God they want. None of their beliefs are calculated into their observations, tests or theories. Scientists are just as varied in their personal beliefs as non-scientists are but their opinions are just that - personal opinions. They are not based on any scientific evidence.
On the other hand, there are tons of things that science can't explain. There is no science that can explain the wonder we feel towards art or hearing great musicians. Divine inspiration probably is the best explanation for John Coltrane's A Love Supreme album. But that would have more to do with Coltrane's personal beliefs and his capacity to translate that through his sax. Who am I to argue whether what he believed in is definable by science or not. To the end result it doesn't matter.
My last point is about trying to find comfort in the wrong places. Science has absolutely no fight whatsoever with faith. They are two completely different areas of our lives. One of the reasons I suggested that book in a previous post was to help people understand that saying things like evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics sounds as bad to scientists as someone suggesting that it was the apostle Paul who parted the Red Sea and helped the Israelite people escape the Pharaoh's army. And even if it were true would that provide any spiritual comfort to believers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

I thought I just did distinguish between between physics and science.. at the start of my last post.. you might want to take a look... second I am not saying there is a necessary connection, that is pretty apparent... all I'm saying is that it is interesting that so many prominent physicists believe in god in some way.. that is pretty apparent from the posts... nowhere do I say because physicists believe it, we all have to believe it, which kind of sounds like what you are trying to imply.. which is utter nonsense... but whatever...

it is a matter of opinion whether science can be used as evidence for god... stating that it cannot as though that is fact is just silly in my opinion and many others obviously.. but you go ahead... I find that the infinitesimal chance that we could exist provides great evidence for some kind of god... same with finite existence.. and yes I do understand your side, I even subscribed to your views at one point, but no longer.. I am sorry if I took your post wrong with regard to implying physics provides evidence there is no god... I will look more carefully next time...

"infinite" is a mathematical concept that is quite irrelevant to try to define with science, to state otherwise is ignorance... first of all because all definitions necessarily fall apart... because it implies there are no spatial or temporal definitions... and science requires spatial and temporal definitions for any theory or thing to be meaningful.. and it is necessary that existence is infinite at some level, because otherwise existence would not be, although on an infinite level terms like existence and non-existence lose all meaning.. I think you need to read up on philosophy and maybe touch into hinduism and buddhism, they speak of what infinite does and doesn't mean.. it is quite interesting... infinite is a human word made up to describe a state we can't really understand.. even the word lacks meaning, for if something is truly infinite we can't measure it in anyway, we can't perceive it, we can't name it, for it is beyond definition... this is why originally what Siddhartha taught has a degree of empiricism in it.. meditation was experimentation, meant to come to awareness of anatta and nirvana , which are basically just names to describe the state of existence and non existence/ of nothing and everything/ of infinite awareness... whether you agree or not the whole point of buddhism originally was to provide enlightenment and understanding of infinite being and non being through self experimentation which was meditation... siddhartha said that each must arrive at this enlightenment through his/her own path... modern buddhism has forgotten this... but in my opinion the countless people who have followed this path or their own path to this enlightenment are just more evidence for the existence of infinite state of existence and non existence...

---

You might want to be more careful in your use of the words science and physics. You said you value a physicists opinion more since you would value a scientists opinion more, that you would putmore value on the opinion of a person that has studied science; but physics is only one branch of science. I physicist cannot tell you about what biology or chemistry says.

I used "necessary" in quite a technical sense, I appologise. What I meant was: simply because someone is an expert in one field, does not mean he/she has any expertise in another, no matter how closely related. If I am an expert in, say, one specific aspect of general relativity, prey tell how that logically requires that I can assuredly be an expert on some other topic, say the matter of the existence of a god etc. ?

You only chose to quote certain physicists that support your beliefs, as I said earlier, that sampling is by no means repesentative of all or even the majority of physicists beliefs. It may in fact be the case that most physicists are atheist, and then what sir?

Of course science can and must be used as evidence for or against the existence of a god, I never argued that! How else are we to definitively settle this question if not by fact and science?

Look, my post was to point out a very subtle logical flaw in your argument. If you understood the flaw, you would certainly not be calling it "obvious". The fact that you stated what I was arguing was obvious, and then retorted using the same fallacy suggests to me you have not really grasped the subtly of the argument. I cannot give you th exact name of the fallacy, but men greatly smarter than me have pointed out that it is not a simple error. Perhaps you need to read the argument a few more times, it really is not simple at all. Imagine, if you can, a great number of universes. Now most of them will not be conducive to life. A very few will, and we will only ever find ourselves in one of those universes that are conducive to live, so it is in fact not miraculuos that we should find ourselves in such a universe. And where did god come into this argument?

Infinity as a mathematical concept is not irrelevant to science. Mathematics is the language of all science. We could not have physics, say, without mathematics. And are you claiming that the mathematician has no grasp of the infinite? Perhaps you should study more mathematics. And I cannot argue with someone who bring bhuddism and other religions into a scientific argument. Infinity is a concept mathematicians and most physicists are quite comfortable, and quite old school to the mathematician in fact.

Btw, if the universe were finite in extent, there would not be anything beyond it, for if there were it would be part of the universe. The universe may be "closed on itself" and thus finite in extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qspeechc

You might want to be more careful in your use of the words science and physics. You said you value a physicists opinion more since you would value a scientists opinion more, that you would putmore value on the opinion of a person that has studied science; but physics is only one branch of science. I physicist cannot tell you about what biology or chemistry says.

I used "necessary" in quite a technical sense, I appologise. What I meant was: simply because someone is an expert in one field, does not mean he/she has any expertise in another, no matter how closely related. If I am an expert in, say, one specific aspect of general relativity, prey tell how that logically requires that I can assuredly be an expert on some other topic, say the matter of the existence of a god etc. ?

You only chose to quote certain physicists that support your beliefs, as I said earlier, that sampling is by no means repesentative of all or even the majority of physicists beliefs. It may in fact be the case that most physicists are atheist, and then what sir?

Of course science can and must be used as evidence for or against the existence of a god, I never argued that! How else are we to definitively settle this question if not by fact and science?

Look, my post was to point out a very subtle logical flaw in your argument. If you understood the flaw, you would certainly not be calling it "obvious". The fact that you stated what I was arguing was obvious, and then retorted using the same fallacy suggests to me you have not really grasped the subtly of the argument. I cannot give you th exact name of the fallacy, but men greatly smarter than me have pointed out that it is not a simple error. Perhaps you need to read the argument a few more times, it really is not simple at all. Imagine, if you can, a great number of universes. Now most of them will not be conducive to life. A very few will, and we will only ever find ourselves in one of those universes that are conducive to live, so it is in fact not miraculuos that we should find ourselves in such a universe. And where did god come into this argument?

Infinity as a mathematical concept is not irrelevant to science. Mathematics is the language of all science. We could not have physics, say, without mathematics. And are you claiming that the mathematician has no grasp of the infinite? Perhaps you should study more mathematics. And I cannot argue with someone who bring bhuddism and other religions into a scientific argument. Infinity is a concept mathematicians and most physicists are quite comfortable, and quite old school to the mathematician in fact.

Btw, if the universe were finite in extent, there would not be anything beyond it, for if there were it would be part of the universe. The universe may be "closed on itself" and thus finite in extent.

---

I am not claiming that because someone is an expert physicist we should value their opinion on the existence of god more.. and whether I have interchanged physicist and sciientist on occasion that is a mistake, and I think I have made that clear already...

and if we did look at all physicists, and the majority were atheists.. well that doesn't change anything.. As I said at the start and several times since I think it is interesting that there are quite a few prominent physicists who think that physics points directly at the existence of god...

also this question will never be settled by physics or science.. that is apparent in my opinion.. there will never be proof there is a god, and there will never be proof that there isn't a god... that is obvious... just arguments for and against, and evidence that could be said to go either way...

you're logical error argument is absurd.. and many other men as smart as those men have argued counter to that... fallacy.. only assuming you are right lol.. of course we find ourselves in a universe that is conducive to life... otherwise we would not be... it is not a miracle that we are in this universe, what is a miracle is that the universe turned out like this, when the odds are so ridiculously small that the universe would turn out in a way that would support life.. if you can't see the difference between those two things than it is you who are blind... and god doesn't have to be put into this argument.. you can call it chance that the universe turned out this way... that every possible turn went the right way for life to evolve as it did... or some will call it design.. it really doesn't matter.. of course it is not a miracle we are in a universe that supports life, this is obvious... as I said what is a miracle is that the universe expanded and evolved in the way it did.. two very different things sir...

ummm i have heard this argument before.. about the universe being finite in extent and closed upon itself.. people bring it up all the time.. lol.. compare it to say the earth if you walk around the earth you will eventually end up in the same spot.. well that is obvious.. lol.. tell me what is outside this closed universe... if it is say a sphere..and even if you cannot leave the sphere.. what is outside the sphere?? more of the universe?? the universe in my opinion is infinite spatially and temporally.. and therefore the universe is not closed on itself in my opinion.. if the big bang is correct what is the space a tiny infinitesimal universe is expanding into.. is it imaginary space that doesn't exist?

second infinite with regards to spatial and temporal definition has nothing to do with mathematics.. that is obvious.. timeless doesn't mean time just goes on forever.. temporal infinite means there is no time.. everything is a single moment.. infinite means a singularity in space and time.. which is impossible to define.. whatever science theorizes... if you cannot define infinite temporally and spatially then it falls outside of science and for the most part math too.. unless you are just talking about the mathematical infinite which is different in my opinion from infinite existence... buddhism in my opinion is better than theoretical science.. you meditate in your own mind to reach a certain state of infinite awareness.. it is self experience.. and if you want proof of infinite existence/ godhead well there it is.. or are these people all delusional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qspeechc

Well, firstly, let me just say, you have only looked at a very few scientists (mostly physicist) and then you draw conclusions about the majority of scientists. There have been millions of scientists in human history, all with greatly varying opinions, some are die-hard atheists, others staunch Christians, or Jews, or whatever. No-one has actually quoted a scientific study on what scientists believe in, so rather not discuss scientists in general, but what a few individuals believe.

And let me add, simply because these people are physicists, extremely intelligent men and women, it does not, emphatically, mean that they are more qualified to speak truths and make brilliant judgements about religion, the origin of life etc. They are physicists, but other than that they are just humans. You would not ask a physicist his opinion on a medical matter and take his response seriously.

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being (whatever you want to call it) that made this universe so perfectly, just so we could survive in it. This is, in fact, the converse of the correct statement.
If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

---

Do you see just there is orderliness or perfection in creation presupposes that this is created by some intelligent being, or there is super intelligence that designed this universe?

I call this is folly folly and there is no essence in thinking so. I am siding with physicists nor go against the idea of theists. I am still exploring and can not settle myself with any particular sets of ideas or theories to approve of or disregard any of these arguments. All I say this planet is mysterious, and man can not get to the root of the reason or purpose or meaning or any idea with regard to the creation of this universe.

Siding with particular sets of ideas or beliefs can not help us arrive at better and more logical ideas at all. Beliefs or faiths taken to their extremes do not help humanities at all and they become detrimental.

I beleive in moderate ideas.

Maybe physicists are right or theologists with regard to the idea of creation in point of fact and we are in dilemmas and can not say anything conclusively at all, for we all make conjectures and can not arrive at solid and substantive ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

...insult...offensive...attacking.. ...condescending, arrogant...offensive...false...

... you are an atheist, and atheists have the monoply on the truth, right???

---

I did read your post/quotes, and read them again. Then I read mine again. I don't see the problem.

I will say that 'huge' is rather an overstatement re: the number of scientists who fall back on God to explain whatever they don't yet know.

Your closing statement is amusing. Years ago, when I was a zealous evangelical Christian, my brother made a similar accusation: that I acted as if I knew all the answers that mattered.

Here, as a gesture of good will, I offer a link to a site full of God-celebrating quotes from famous scientists in history:

http://www.eadshome.com/Sciencequotes.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

I did read your post/quotes, and read them again. Then I read mine again. I don't see the problem.

I will say that 'huge' is rather an overstatement re: the number of scientists who fall back on God to explain whatever they don't yet know.

Your closing statement is amusing. Years ago, when I was a zealous evangelical Christian, my brother made a similar accusation: that I acted as if I knew all the answers that mattered.

Here, as a gesture of good will, I offer a link to a site full of God-celebrating quotes from famous scientists in history:

http://www.eadshome.com/Sciencequotes.htm

---

EL Viejo,
I would ask you to refer back to my post #42. No one has a monopoly on the truth but scientific work deals with what we can work with in nature not the supernatural.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../aton1561l.jpg

The scientific enterprise/mindset is devoted to discovering the truth of how things work. It does not answer the question of what the universe means (if anything). This is not a failing of science, but rather a triumph of its discipline. Philosophy (in metaphysics) and theology deal with the question of the ultimate nature of reality in itself (not just operationally). This is why an attempt to use one field to answer questions in another inevitably generate more heat than light. That being said, if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

The scientific enterprise/mindset is devoted to discovering the truth of how things work. It does not answer the question of what the universe means (if anything). This is not a failing of science, but rather a triumph of its discipline. Philosophy (in metaphysics) and theology deal with the question of the ultimate nature of reality in itself (not just operationally). This is why an attempt to use one field to answer questions in another inevitably generate more heat than light. That being said, if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

---

:thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

---

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mangueken

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

---

For the same reason many on the atheistic side use science for their beliefs.. Everyone, or close to everyone, (especially on the fundamentalist side) wants to prove that their set of beliefs is right, if not, well, we would most likely not have wars... at least not religious wars.. dissenting beliefs do not fit into fundamentalist religion..

theists often will claim science proves that god is real, and try to marry faith and reason because faith isn't always strong enough, and when both fail well in the past we have had religions resort to faith by the sword.. but atheism, and again not in all cases, commits the same error in saying science supplies evidence and proves there is no god.. where? in the fact that science hasn't discovered a god in the universe?? well that is not evidence, nor is it proof... whether I think science provides a small degree of evidence for some form of god or not, I agree with you, it is a little contradictory to use objective science as a support for faith (assuming you believe science is objective truth, and not just relative to our viewpoint, to our ideas, our language, and most of all the fact science is theoretical and never fully truth or fact.)... faith is supposed to be there regardless of needing proof.. that is the point of faith and that is what can make it so incredibly beautiful at times but also so incredibly dangerous at other times when it overpowers all sense of reason...

i've been all across the board in what I've believed and studied... I've been atheistic for the large majority of my life, but I find when I meditate there is something else there, and I have complete faith in it... and I don't need science to prove this for me.. I have my heart and my mind for that.. science is great for a better understanding of the physical universe but it will never prove or disprove the existence of god, and it will all depend on opinion whether you see evidence for god in science, or see evidence against god..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mangueken

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

---

I agree that learning, and thereby wisdom, can be achieved only by moving beyond one's comfort zone, and doing so respectfully.

I am not sure that it is fruitful to consider why people use certain arguments inappropriately.

In the Christian tradition since the time of Augustine it has been accepted that there can be no contradiction between correctly reasoned non-Christian science (or, in those days, philosophy) and revealed Christian truth. Augustine himself first came to be a Christian by reading "certain Platonists" (Confessions Book VII). The whole enterprise of Scholasticism was based on the premise that Christian beliefs and the best of pagan thought must be compatible.

There was a falling out about that with the collapse of scholasticism under the attack of William of Ockham and others in the 14th Century, but the enterprise in one form or another has continued in Christianity.

A relatively recent phenomenon has been fundamentalism (or literalism). This movement began no earlier than the 16th Century and really became vocal in the 19th Century onwards. It has broken with centuries of Christian tradition and has looked to interpreting the Bible in a way that few before Calvin's would have thought responsible (whether Calvin himself would have agreed with fundamentalism is a matter of debate, and I hazard no opinion on it).

Given the fundamentalists' lack of historical roots and tradition, they must look elsewhere for validation. While the fundamentalist must claim that all the validation he/she needs is to be found in the Bible, the position itself is so extreme and so unforgiving (by its very nature) of nuance and interpretation that it must either force all other knowledge within the narrow confines of its framework or else reject it entirely.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the response Richard, it does help. I agree about the fruitfulness of questioning why ideas are misused. Heck, even within a given system some people misuse and abuse ideas. I was really trying to get my head around the brief history you presented. Since I was born in a Catholic family in a Catholic town I don't have much experience or knowledge of fundamentalist's beliefs except for their tireless push to influence public policies and science. I will have to try to find some books on this topic, because it seems that they don't share the Catholic tradition of education. Off the top of my head I can't think of any example of a Kepler or Copernicus. It doesn't mean they don't exist but at least I found a direction to go in to find out more about this other part of Christianity.

Hey El Viejo,
I felt this post wasn't adequately responded to, so I thought I might interject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil. We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior. We expose our bodies in unseemly ways. We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects. We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living. We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.

---

I wanted to take this paragraph from you and break is down sentence by sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil.

---

I agree most wholeheartedly. Our forebears were very intelligent with their simplicity.

Quote:

---

We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior.

---

There are none that God has claimed to be inferior, according to the Christian Bible. If this statement was concerning a different god, forgive my intrusion. Could you expand on this? I'm curious as to what you are referring to by it.

Quote:

---

We expose our bodies in unseemly ways.

---

Our forebears certainly were more modest. Do you find nothing wrong with the way people dress nowadays? I would imagine that just how much of an issue sex has become in this culture serves as enough proof that something is wrong with our 'exposing' of our body.

Quote:

---

We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects.

---

Again, referring to the Christian God...
There is nothing wrong with easing pain - there is something wrong with doing away with pain completely, or becoming slaves to the various medicines we have created to dull pain. Fighting disease is fine. Disease is a product of sin entering into the world. As for 'correcting his divinely administered defects', I would first say that not all defects are 'divinely administered'. Of those that are, often enough they are not meant as a crippling condition that is meant to be with that person for the rest of their life, but a temporary condition that is there to help them grow through a specific part of their life.

Quote:

---

We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living.

---

Just because life doesn't exist makes them imperfect? :)
I think they are absolutely beautiful in the night sky.

Quote:

---

We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.

---

For better or for worse. Some knowledge it absolutely wonderful when shared, but I've come to realize that some knowledge truly should never be shared (nor should have been found in the first place).

Just my own thoughts though.

God bless.

-Teleios

First let me say I was really excited to see everyone's post on this thread... very exciting debate going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mangueken

...

I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

---

I saw this earlier but was otherwise engaged, now I wanted to reply a little... why they would use science for their beliefs... I couldn't tell you about anyone else, but I have a couple of ideas which have not so much to do with proving God, but using science as well...

First of all we must acknowledge that there is more to science than just physical science. Psychology for instance is part of the mental sciences. In this vein, I would first really like to share with people the name of Milarepa, a Tibetan saint-mystic who is deeply revered in Buddhism. Now, I've read collections of his songs, and even though I'd studied psychology and psychotherapy, I haven't seen anything deeper or truer than Milarepa's songs... nothing that went as deep or as penetrating as his insights-- and this was from a sage from over a thousand years ago! So in this vein; Hinduism and Buddhism both, for a very long time, have had a much deeper understanding of psychology, which is a mental science.

Now also self-realization, in Hinduism, is considerd a science. The science of self-realization-- this is a process, especially it is called bhakti-yoga, or devotional yoga. It is scientific because it is a system which gives you quantifiable results... "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." It is all about spiritual growth, which is the culmination of mental development. In this connection there are also many Hindu mystics who have made contributions to the discipline... the same is true with Buddhism. These have very good understandings of psychology.

Gopi Krishna was a... "yogi, mystic, teacher, social reformer, and writer..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopi_Krishna - who did work about spirituality and other topics. He invited scientists to read his work and to communicate, he was always trying to increase communication. He made the good point that in today's society, the physical side of our universe has gotten an unbalanced greater attention than the mental or spiritual side. Humanity, we, have both physical and spiritual aspects to us; and if we learn about one exclusively and never learn about the other side; it will be unbalanced and lead to... well, something-- despair? Who is to say.

And, another teacher who did wonderful work for all of us, was Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo had a really good message, hopeful, etc... because he described things like Truth-Consciousness, the Consciousness-Force...described various parts of spirituality in great detail... the idea is that the "Truth" is a good thing... it is much better than pessimistic or gross materialistic, etc... of course almost all atheists on this website have good intentions, but I sincerely believe God is real, and so I am engaging them also with the intention of sharing... And some people I have been insulted by...they would say something about Aurobindo insulting him, though they have not read him... close-mindedness above all is an enemy of finding the truth... for either side. For myself, I do not see a difference between atheism and other beliefs... on an absolute level, either way is immaterial, but in our daily lives, faith is very sacred.

I think it's very important to share that faith and reason are not at odds. Writers like Aurobindo are not preaching ignorance, quite the opposite their writings are often guided by light...

Aurobindo spoke of an awakening of the entire race... sort of a radiant apocalypse, to use the words of Andrew Harvey... other religions taught the same thing... Buddhism speaks of Shambala, Gaudiya Vaishnavas speak of the 10,000 year long golden age, began about 500 years ago; Christian mystics spoke of eras similar to Awakening... so this is a very important message, I believe.

The main thing is that these teachers are saying there will be peace. I heard a Kabbalist say that nothing worldwide, or societal, can be put in effect without the individuals of society changing their inner values, to develop their inner qualities until they are reflections of the light of their Creator. There is actually a very wondeful world beyond this material one; beyond the material universe exists the spiritual world. It is where we came from and to which we may return... all religions have some elements of the truth, I would say sometimes they do not have it all correct, and there are bits that are off-center... but there are certain truths.. there are things that we can know, we can learn, having to do with spiritual maturity, growth, etc... it is a predicition but will not come true unless the individuals in society and in the world do not develop their inner qualities and spiritual lives.

Atheists ask why God is conspicuosly absent, but mystics/prophets speak of awakening... there is great and detailed knowledge from many sources, about the science of self-realization, of the long, gradual process until one has knowledge of the self. As soon as one develops true vision, then all the deluded and suffering-causing concepts one has held up in the mind, are simply transformed. Mainly, if we take to the path of self-realization, then we can know for sure that the future will be bright. We ourselves can cross over birth and death; we can transcend the suffering of existence, after this the only thing to do is to continue living and exploring... helping others to find realization-- or not disturbing them if to speak to them would disturb them, etc... just my ideas!

And... to come back to topic... again, it's simply the scientific part of these writers... Aurobindo's was not so much a vision because it was so scientific... how he described everything up until the end. Gopi Krishna always called for science to come into the spiritual part of it, and to learn and share and collaborate.. okay I know I've written enough, hope this helps.

[Edit; Milarepa was an individual, not 'some people' :)]

Nikolai1:
Thanks for your input. One of my reasons for participating in this discussion is to find some common ground between those who believe in something and those who have a scientific view. If we could at least understand how our perspective sides approach questions then we could at least agree to disagree, respectfully.
When you said, "First of all we must acknowledge that there is more to science than just physical science. Psychology for instance is part of the mental sciences."
I'm not sure if you phrased what you wanted to say accurately. I agree that there is more to life than science but not that there is more to science than physical science. There is good scientific work done in psychology but there is also a lot in that specific field that is not done with any scientific basis.
But beside that, I have no problem with the philosophical aspects of Buddhism (I know nothing of Hinduism, so I won't comment upon that) or other philosophies of life like the Tao Te Ching. We all search for some type of internal harmony through our personal journeys in life. Honestly, I don't begrudge any one's religion or beliefs. I know some atheists have some type of campaign to belittle people who believe, as if smug insults were a good recruiting tool, but that is not my approach.
I think I have always been an atheist, religion has never been important or comforting to me in my daily life. I also don't have any "classic" trauma stories to tell of growing up Catholic and going to Catholic school. As I feel that it is something personal, I do not try to interfere with other people's personal lives.
However, saying all that, I do try to help people understand what is the scientific method and I try to help correct the misunderstandings they may have about different scientific ideas. For example, Islandclimber and Virgil, both used mistaken views about science to bolster their support of their religious ideas. I directed them to a book, written by scientists that help explain the science part.
In my opinion religion and science do not need to fight. It is a false war. Science only has tools to deal with the natural, physical world. It can not say, infer, measure or quantify anything in the supernatural world. Any scientist who says different is just expressing his personal opinion, he definitely cannot prove his views for or against any belief system.
Religion on the other hand, has no need of the scientific tools for any type of spiritual salvation. Where is the spiritual comfort to be found in understanding how viral DNA attaches itself to human DNA? Science deals with the physical temporal part of life and religion deals with the spiritual, atemporal part.
I also think there is a universality to religions, The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion by Mircea Eliade is a great book to read about this subject. Now, whether they all have a kernal of truth or not, is not likely to proven scientifically. Each of us will discover the truth on that lonely day we die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mangueken

Nikolai1:
Thanks for your input. One of my reasons ...

---

Well, you gave me pause and I had to look up psychology; since I called it a mental science and got this from the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov! :) But looking it up it seems generally to be accepted as science. Now that we speak of it, I am remembering in my high school psych class how psychology struggled as a discipline to enter the scientific communities as a real science. In Asimov's book, that was an underlying theme, that psychology got less funding, etc. because there was more research than results; whereas physical science gave us comforts and greater entertainment, etc..

But yes, as you said, they are not at odds... like I said Gopi Krishna was always calling for communication and collaberation between scientists and religionists.

Now I am also not interested in interfering with people's lives... or rather, not forcing them into anything, that's absurd; however, I will ask you this. If you had an experience which was revelatory in nature, which was an illumination and you felt, you knew it was true; and more importantly, you knew this was absolutely the most important thing, because you were viewing truth... the rest of your whole life was not real in comparison to this one truth... wouldn't you wish to share this? I've had several experiences like this, when I had to tell myself, you cannot forget this! And so I am always speaking of faith, trying to get people to think about God, because I know God is real. I'd studied different mystics, yogis, philosophies, so many things before I had these experiences, and... I remember Dostoyevsky's character from "The Dream of a Ridiculus Man," and I can only say that I feel exactly the same as him... to go forever with my message, even though it may not be received.

Physics are part of the physical universe but again, that's not all there is to us. There is an infinite world, as well as the physical world.

Buddhists state that there is no independent phenomena, that all phenomena is interdependent. But they don't have any statements about God. In fact all belongs to God. If we take food but do not recognize where it came from, we are being thieves. Therefore God should be at the center of all one's thoughts and actions. Are doing what God wishes? Are we pleasing Him? We should simply act to please Him. And when we study physics, when we use it, we should not use it against people, or for our own glory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Well, you gave me pause and I had to look up psychology; since I called it a mental science and got this from the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov! :)

---

That is one of my my favorite sci fi pieces!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

But yes, as you said, they are not at odds... like I said Gopi Krishna was always calling for communication and collaberation between scientists and religionists.

---

I think scientists and people of faith can work on social problems that plague all sectors of society. But that requires respect on both sides and a willingness on both sides to use what each side is best at rather than belittle each other. I heard a podcast of an atheist (Perry DeAngelis) who said he hated extremism of all kinds whether it was from the religious camp or the atheist camp. He said both were just a fervent, just as bigoted and just as loud-mouthed as the other. (you can find the podcast on iTunes (it's free) from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe #109 August 24 2007).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

however, I will ask you this. If you had an experience which was revelatory in nature, which was an illumination and you felt, you knew it was true; and more importantly, you knew this was absolutely the most important thing, because you were viewing truth... the rest of your whole life was not real in comparison to this one truth... wouldn't you wish to share this?

---

While I find that it is very improbable that I would have a moment like you talk about, I do understand that people do feel that and I surely agree with desire to share it. From my own perspective I do the same. I love to share my information, my views and if I am not qualified or able to explain something from the various fields of science, I can usually point a person in the right direction to find out from a good source. As I think it wrong that some atheists dismiss people's beliefs, I think it is wrong of faith based people to dismiss or misstate scientific principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

I've had several experiences like this, when I had to tell myself, you cannot forget this! And so I am always speaking of faith, trying to get people to think about God, because I know God is real. I'd studied different mystics, yogis, philosophies, so many things before I had these experiences, and... I remember Dostoyevsky's character from "The Dream of a Ridiculus Man," and I can only say that I feel exactly the same as him... to go forever with my message, even though it may not be received.

---

Some of my favorite thoughts about religion and secular society come Dostoyevsky. Particularly, The Brothers Karamazov. I haven't read the story you mention, but I will look for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Buddhists state that there is no independent phenomena, that all phenomena is interdependent. But they don't have any statements about God. In fact all belongs to God. If we take food but do not recognize where it came from, we are being thieves. Therefore God should be at the center of all one's thoughts and actions. Are doing what God wishes? Are we pleasing Him? We should simply act to please Him. And when we study physics, when we use it, we should not use it against people, or for our own glory...

---

I would say something similar of faith. Do not use it against people or one's own glory. And like the master painters learn how to paint by copying and recreating their masters. If there is some real god type being, science is but trying to explore and understand the work of that master.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mangueken

EL Viejo,
I would ask you to refer back to my post #42. No one has a monopoly on the truth but scientific work deals with what we can work with in nature not the supernatural.

---

We agree on some points. Where we disagree is on the matter of the supernatural. You're saying nature and the supernatural are different things. I'm saying the supernatural is simply nature as yet unknown.

We also disagree that faith and science can peacefully coexist. In "When Prophesy Fails" Festinger et al found that when believers are faced with fact not aligning with their faith, it is easier to simply disregard the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

We agree on some points. Where we disagree is on the matter of the supernatural. You're saying nature and the supernatural are different things. I'm saying the supernatural is simply nature as yet unknown.

---

I'm think we may be able to agree that science deals with known nature because that is what is able to be studied in direct objective form. I can agree that the supernatural is nature not yet known. Who knows, maybe one day a new science field will develop that has the intellectual and physical tools to study what we currently call the supernatural. Of course once we are able to study and measure effects in that area it will no longer be the supernatural but just the natural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

We also disagree that faith and science can peacefully coexist. In "When Prophesy Fails" Festinger et al found that when believers are faced with fact not aligning with their faith, it is easier to simply disregard the facts.

---

I do not know that book but as I am headed to the library today, I will check to see if it is there. But I think, and this may not have been you're intention, that you have exaggerated our disagreement. As I wrote in previous posts here that I think science and religion not only can but they must peacefully coexist. That peaceful existence can only come from respect and understanding of each others viewpoints. I could state this in a specific way. Scientists of any field as they are today have no tools available to them to prove or disprove any god-like being. For now that is the realm of the supernatural.
On the other hand, people of faith should understand that their faith does not have tools to explain natural phenomenon. Their faith is a personal question and not everyone need subscribe to one or another of the faith systems to work together on solving common social issuses.
I see extremists on both sides picking on supposed weaknesses of the other rather than on each coming with their strengths to resolve what has a better chance of being resolved if there were more people involved.

Physics is a obviously a branch of science which is a human invention, a set of laws of matter that governs the physical aspects of what we are all surrounded by. Physics tend to include the laws that we cannot particular see as physical such as wavelength and energy.
Let me discuss these two subjects and link it with God.
We all know that Einstein's E=mc2 is the relativity between energy, mass and the speed of light, and we also know that light is in fact a form of energy. We often hear that God infact is light and energy that have created the universe. As light is indeed energy, God can be described as energy. Never formed and never distroyed. Energy is everywhere, so is God. Now let me elaborate on light energy. Where there is light, we can see the truth of the form of an object that light bounces off from. Where there is God, we can see the truth of things, and see what is right and wrong. We often link light with hope, safety and goodness. So is God. Now light makes up the colours ROYGBIV, the colour of the world, where in absence of light makes up shade or a shadow. We know shadows are bottomless pit black, darkness giving sense of hopelessness, horror and death. With out light/God, there is death. With God, there is eternal life, a salvation.
Let us think about the word bright. As it can depict the essence of light in dark places, it can also depict an intelligent person. A bright person is a person who is able to think critically and thoughtfully with accuracy. A bright person's brain seems "switched on" well and well functioned. This is where electrical energy can come in which can also represent God as God can be any energy.
Remember energy gives us life, strength to carry out life function. Without energy we die, therefore without God, we die. Now let us think back to the beginning God created Adam, and He created Him out of his image. Other than physical image, He created us with the same component that functions our body with something he also represents. Electrical energy. Our brains function with billions of neurons, and each neurons have to pass on information in order to carry out our body functions. It is electrical energy that passes from one neuron to another, a spark with critical information to tell the body to do a particular task. So, our brain contains activity of wild electrical energy flow, and without it we die. As God can represent electrical energy, without Him, we die. Back to the word "bright" a person with the most brain activity, thus electrical energy in their brain is most closer to God, where is infinite in every aspect of knowledge and wisdom.
There is another connection. As God who can represent electrical energy, controls the universe, our brain containing electrical energy controls the body. As the word "Christian" means little Christ, this is a linking factor that we are in fact imitators of our God.

Physics and God do not go together. Maybe there is far-fetched relationship but not direct.

Why wouldnt God and physics go together, is there anything in the natural world that he created that doesnt go together with God? Physics contains laws of matter that are invented by man, and these matter are all created by God. Simply, mankind attempts to understand the physical world and matter that God has created. There isnt any barrier God has with physcis however physics is greatly limited to explain a small aspect of God's creations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Physics is a obviously a branch of science which is a human invention, a set of laws of matter that governs the physical aspects of what we are all surrounded by. Physics tend to include the laws that we cannot particular see as physical such as wavelength and energy.
Let me discuss these two subjects and link it with God.
We all know that Einstein's E=mc2 is the relativity between energy, mass and the speed of light, and we also know that light is in fact a form of energy. We often hear that God infact is light and energy that have created the universe. As light is indeed energy, God can be described as energy. Never formed and never distroyed. Energy is everywhere, so is God. Now let me elaborate on light energy. Where there is light, we can see the truth of the form of an object that light bounces off from. Where there is God, we can see the truth of things, and see what is right and wrong. We often link light with hope, safety and goodness. So is God. Now light makes up the colours ROYGBIV, the colour of the world, where in absence of light makes up shade or a shadow. We know shadows are bottomless pit black, darkness giving sense of hopelessness, horror and death. With out light/God, there is death. With God, there is eternal life, a salvation.
Let us think about the word bright. As it can depict the essence of light in dark places, it can also depict an intelligent person. A bright person is a person who is able to think critically and thoughtfully with accuracy. A bright person's brain seems "switched on" well and well functioned. This is where electrical energy can come in which can also represent God as God can be any energy.
Remember energy gives us life, strength to carry out life function. Without energy we die, therefore without God, we die. Now let us think back to the beginning God created Adam, and He created Him out of his image. Other than physical image, He created us with the same component that functions our body with something he also represents. Electrical energy. Our brains function with billions of neurons, and each neurons have to pass on information in order to carry out our body functions. It is electrical energy that passes from one neuron to another, a spark with critical information to tell the body to do a particular task. So, our brain contains activity of wild electrical energy flow, and without it we die. As God can represent electrical energy, without Him, we die. Back to the word "bright" a person with the most brain activity, thus electrical energy in their brain is most closer to God, where is infinite in every aspect of knowledge and wisdom.
There is another connection. As God who can represent electrical energy, controls the universe, our brain containing electrical energy controls the body. As the word "Christian" means little Christ, this is a linking factor that we are in fact imitators of our God.

---

Skasian, you are treading on thin ice with argument like these, I am afraid.
Firstly, the fact that in English, "bright" is used as a metaphor for an intelligent person shows things about language and culture, if even those.
The thing is that you seem to draw parallels between energy and what is perceived as God - which do exist, but it doesn't show that they are the same thing.

God is of course a bugger to define so your arguments do hold water when you define God as energy, but the problem is that then you will be losing a bunch of properties of God that are commonly associated with it- like personality, for starters. Also, it will lose a lot of mysticism, makes praying and meditation a strictly psychological phenomenon.
But from your text, it seems that God is somehow linked to morality - as you say that we can see right and wrong when we watch things by God - the problem is, when you equate God to energy, one is something transcendent while the other is measurable.
(By the way, when you equate God with electromagnetism, you would do well to attach the three other basic forces too - otherwise it would be a bit weird. )
Or did I totally misunderstand you and you meant it as a simile, a comparison? In that case I beg pardon.

God is a subjective idea and physics is an objective idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Skasian, you are treading on thin ice with argument like these, I am afraid.
Firstly, the fact that in English, "bright" is used as a metaphor for an intelligent person shows things about language and culture, if even those.
The thing is that you seem to draw parallels between energy and what is perceived as God - which do exist, but it doesn't show that they are the same thing.

God is of course a bugger to define so your arguments do hold water when you define God as energy, but the problem is that then you will be losing a bunch of properties of God that are commonly associated with it- like personality, for starters. Also, it will lose a lot of mysticism, makes praying and meditation a strictly psychological phenomenon.
But from your text, it seems that God is somehow linked to morality - as you say that we can see right and wrong when we watch things by God - the problem is, when you equate God to energy, one is something transcendent while the other is measurable.
(By the way, when you equate God with electromagnetism, you would do well to attach the three other basic forces too - otherwise it would be a bit weird. )
Or did I totally misunderstand you and you meant it as a simile, a comparison? In that case I beg pardon.

---

Yes, similie is quite correct, I believe that God is like energy, as He can be in this form when He communicates and moves us. Unless you are not thinking that God is actually everything expect evil and unholiness, then I think you are misunderstanding me. I believe that God is everything good and pure, including energy. The reason why I linked and connected God with physics was because I believe that God made energy, therefore as Physics is the study of energy, by studying physics, we can understand God's creations and complex perfection He had attained.

Actually the word bright I was discussing about is precisely used as a metaphor, as an intelligent person will have more brain activity than the average person, the brain will contain more electric pulses than the average person, therefore supporting that electricity is like God as He has infinite knowledge.

Do you reckon I should edit my previous post so people will know that I was making a similie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

God is a subjective idea and physics is an objective idea.

---

As God created the matters and substances of physics, there are obvious connections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

As God created the matters and substances of physics, there are obvious connections.

---

The word God did not create anything. God is beyond creation. Creation is a process that goes autonomously and God has little to do with it.

Of course on the surface you are right. Once you get at the room of it your level of understanding will be intenser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

The word God did not create anything. God is beyond creation. Creation is a process that goes autonomously and God has little to do with it.

Of course on the surface you are right. Once you get at the room of it your level of understanding will be intenser.

---

God has little to do with creation? I dont mind what ever you think about God, but as a religious person, I do believe that God created the universe and everything organic in it. As energy is included in God's creation, everything he created is connected to Him like a Father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

God has little to do with creation? I dont mind what ever you think about God, but as a religious person, I do believe that God created the universe and everything organic in it. As energy is included in God's creation, everything he created is connected to Him like a Father.

---

This is a fairy tale and nothing else. If you do not take every word in the bible literally you will understand the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

This is a fairy tale and nothing else. If you do not take every word in the bible literally you will understand the fact.

---

This is where our main differences in our thoughts of religion part our thoughts once again. It really depends on whether you believe in God or not, therefore accepting if there was a Creator or not. As you do not believe in God, you do not believe in a Creator, thus your thoughts of God creating all matters of the world probably is close to nil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

This is where our main differences in our thoughts of religion part our thoughts once again. It really depends on whether you believe in God or not, therefore accepting if there was a Creator or not. As you do not believe in God, you do not believe in a Creator, thus your thoughts of God creating all matters of the world probably is close to nil.

---

Your inferential conclusion is flawed in point of fact. Do not dupe yourself with ideas that are not convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Your inferential conclusion is flawed in point of fact. Do not dupe yourself with ideas that are not convincing.

---

Convincing or not, if it is the truth, it holds power.
If it was not, then you would of had disagreed.
The fact that you do not believe in God, it is natural for you to think He and His works are "fairy tale and nothing else".
I say once again, if one speaks the truth, then they dont require persuasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Convincing or not, if it is the truth, it holds power.
If it was not, then you would of had disagreed.
The fact that you do not believe in God, it is natural for you to think He and His works are "fairy tale and nothing else".
I say once again, if one speaks the truth, then they dont require persuasion.

---

Not subscribing to your idea does not entail the fact that I am not a believer.

You need an internal eye to see things beyond the visible.

I advise everyone, regarding this topic, a book entitled God's Formula, by José Rodrigues dos Santos, a portuguese author! It's a romance, in the way of writing, but it's based on up-to-date, modern, scientific theories, particularly physics, about the Universe! If you read portuguese you can find it on the publisher Gradiva!