I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[SpeedRacer 1]

Because spirituality is non-quantifiable.

Therefore the tools of math and science don't apply.

Look, we were all born a short time ago. As we grew up we experienced two things: Outside, objective, quantifiable reality. Things that can be measured mathematically, and by instruments which are extensions of our physical senses (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste).

We also experienced internal, subjective experiences. Things like love for our parents. The thrill you feel when you hear beautiful music, or jump from a plane. rage, passion, love, hate. The desire for a better world or a better country. And the basic internal awareness of Self that we all feel.

Now there may well be neurological synapses that are scientifically describable that are associated with these feelings. But the point isthat that is not the same as actually EXPERIENCING them as a human being.

Spirituality exists as an INTERNAL reality. It can only be experienced by the human being. And as far as we, as human beings, are concerned, spiritual reality is just as REAL as outside, quantifiable reality.

We were born into this world and experience both.

Now none of this argument proves the particular theological dogma of one religion or another. It simply establishes the precedent that every day we deal with & experience the subjective, internal, spiriitual experience of being a human being, just as surely as we experience outward, objectively-measurable things like gravity.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[steveorino 7]

Quote

>But it doesn't bother you that two scientist can look at the
>same "evidence" and come up with two hypothesis?

Not at all! A hypothesis is a guess. That's how the process works.

Phenomena is observed. An intelligent guess is made as to what causes it, or how it operates. This is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested. If it checks out, then it becomes a working theory. If not, then it is rejected and some other hypothesis is proposed.

This is somewhat contrary to how religion works. In religion, intelligent assumptions are made about god. They are then defended to the death. If physical evidence is discovered that contradicts that assumption, the physical evidence is ignored until it becomes overwhelming - at which point the assumption is claimed to not be that important and subsequently ignored. That's sort of the opposite. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad, but it is a very different way of doing things.

I believe whaat you are describing is a characture of Christian theology. I'm sure it applies to many lay people in the Christian faith, but that has not been my experience with those who choose to study theology seriously.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

If physical evidence is discovered that contradicts that assumption, the physical evidence is ignored until it becomes overwhelming - at which point the assumption is claimed to not be that important and subsequently ignored. That's sort of the opposite. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad, but it is a very different way of doing things.

What the fuck?!!?!??!!!

How in blue blazes can believing an assumtion and ignoring all the contrary evidence, even when it is overwelming, be anything other than inherently bad?

Sorry Bill but I cannot describe how monumentally stupid I think that comment is.

[SpeedRacer 1]

again, I think bill is referring to Fundamentalist thinking, which not all Christians adhere to.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JackC 0]

Quote

Because spirituality is non-quantifiable.

Therefore the tools of math and science don't apply.

Sure they do. Just because you don't want them to or can't think of a way of using them doesn't mean they can't be applied. If there is a question, you can be damn sure that a scientist somewhere is trying to answer it, no matter what it is.

Quote

Spirituality exists as an INTERNAL reality. It can only be experienced by the human being. And as far as we, as human beings, are concerned, spiritual reality is just as REAL as outside, quantifiable reality.

If something is to be a real "thing" surely it must exist independent of the observer. If it doesn't, then it's no different from any imaginary construct. If you're saying that god/spirituality is just a feeling then OK, I'll give you that, but if you want me to believe that god is a real thing that exists and isn't simply a halucination caused by the interaction of your synapses and your brain chemistry then you'll have to do better. Much better.

[philh 0]

"What I see are scientist who clam science answers everything coming up with two very different scenarios based on the "facts" they study. Are their "facts" the same? Maybe, I don't know. Are their facts different? Possibly, again I don't know. But either way each makes a claim they have scientific evidence of their "theory." "

This is all part of the process of sceintific dsicovery. if the scenario you describe really occurred a scientific consesus would be brought about only if there was way to objectivley test between the two theories. A great example of this is in Quantum theory. Einstein claimed there were hidden local varibales and Bohr denied this. Both had the same facts but eventually John Bell came to an experiment that could resolve the difference and the experiment was finally perfomred in 1982 by Alain Aspect. Einstein was proved wrong and Bohr right. To contrast this two different interpretations of Qm are the Copenhagen interpretation and the the Many Worlds interpreation; neither can be disnguished in an experiment and so the question remains open.

So differences in opinion in science dont bother me. If theres a way to test between the two opionion we will get to the facts, if there isnt wel'l leave the question open, no problem with that. As a result of this process sceintific consesus has a great weight of authrotiy to it. In contrast in bible studies there is no way to "test " between two theories and therefore the same weight cannot be applied. There is no biblical consensus on the meaning of huge amounts of passages and even if there were,because its not based on aything thats testable, it wouldnt mean anything.

The thing about science is, its not just a way of building better planes, computers or designing better drugs. Its also a method , the only method we know that works of discovering the truth about the world around us. if you claimed your canopy was fatser thhan mine we could argue about it all day but an experiment could settle the issue . Thats when we know when things are true and that is what religion refuses to apply and thats why its an illegitamte mode on inquiry.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

If something is to be a real "thing" surely it must exist independent of the observer

Not necessarily. Internal human spiritual experiences exist. They are real, and they do not exist independently of the observer.

YOu can apply math & science by, for example, applying statistics to how often a psychological state exists.

But in real life you interact spiritually with other people. (Using math & science isn't useful in these human interactions, unless maybe you believe yourself to be a Mr. Spock or something). If you know what it is like to experience love or hate you have had a spiritual experience.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Because spirituality is non-quantifiable.

Therefore the tools of math and science don't apply.

Look, we were all born a short time ago. As we grew up we experienced two things: Outside, objective, quantifiable reality. Things that can be measured mathematically, and by instruments which are extensions of our physical senses (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste).

We also experienced internal, subjective experiences. Things like love for our parents. The thrill you feel when you hear beautiful music, or jump from a plane. rage, passion, love, hate. The desire for a better world or a better country. And the basic internal awareness of Self that we all feel.

Now there may well be neurological synapses that are scientifically describable that are associated with these feelings. But the point isthat that is not the same as actually EXPERIENCING them as a human being.

Spirituality exists as an INTERNAL reality. It can only be experienced by the human being. And as far as we, as human beings, are concerned, spiritual reality is just as REAL as outside, quantifiable reality.

We were born into this world and experience both.

Now none of this argument proves the particular theological dogma of one religion or another. It simply establishes the precedent that every day we deal with & experience the subjective, internal, spiriitual experience of being a human being, just as surely as we experience outward, objectively-measurable things like gravity.

You realise that what you've basically just said is "God is imaginary" right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,632]

Quote

Quote

If something is to be a real "thing" surely it must exist independent of the observer

Not necessarily. Internal human spiritual experiences exist. They are real, and they do not exist independently of the observer.

YOu can apply math & science by, for example, applying statistics to how often a psychological state exists.

But in real life you interact spiritually with other people. (Using math & science isn't useful in these human interactions, unless maybe you believe yourself to be a Mr. Spock or something). If you know what it is like to experience love or hate you have had a spiritual experience.

How is this religious experience any different from mental illness or a drug induced high?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

If you know what it is like to experience love or hate you have had a spiritual experience.

Looks like you are equating emotions with spiritualism? You still haven't made a case for god being real.

[philh 0]

"I'm not a creationist, and I do not believe Genesis is either a historical or scientific account for the beginning of the world"

Well that great but in which case why claim the bible is from god? If the bible came from god why does its account of creation have so many errors in it?
if you had someone give you narrative of a murder which said the victim was shot in the morning in their home and the coroners report showed they were stabbed in the evening in their car, wouldnt you simply discard the testimony and say they are either a liar or are mistaken? Would you still insist their testimony was divinley inspired?

So it should be with the bible, it gets all the facts about creation we can test wrong, very wrong. So why should we not consider its authors as either lying or mistaken? this is entirely consistent with the idea that the bible was written by ancient and ignorant men and entirley inconsistent with the idea thatt it was inspired by a perfect divine bing who knew how the universe was created.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

If something is to be a real "thing" surely it must exist independent of the observer

Not necessarily. Internal human spiritual experiences exist. They are real, and they do not exist independently of the observer.

YOu can apply math & science by, for example, applying statistics to how often a psychological state exists.

But in real life you interact spiritually with other people. (Using math & science isn't useful in these human interactions, unless maybe you believe yourself to be a Mr. Spock or something). If you know what it is like to experience love or hate you have had a spiritual experience.

But then that type of 'spirituality' cannot in any way be connected to organised religion.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in an afterlife? Do you believe that God controls who will go to this afterlife? To be real, these things must exist independantly of the observer, for our internal experiences all die with us.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"I'm not a creationist, and I do not believe Genesis is either a historical or scientific account for the beginning of the world"

Well that great but in which case why claim the bible is from god? If the bible came from god why does its account of creation have so many errors in it?
if you had someone give you narrative of a murder which said the victim was shot in the morning in their home and the coroners report showed they were stabbed in the evening in their car, wouldnt you simply discard the testimony and say they are either a liar or are mistaken? Would you still insist their testimony was divinley inspired?

So it should be with the bible, it gets all the facts about creation we can test wrong, very wrong. So why should we not consider its authors as either lying or mistaken? this is entirely consistent with the idea that the bible was written by ancient and ignorant men and entirley inconsistent with the idea thatt it was inspired by a perfect divine bing who knew how the universe was created.

I already answered you. IMO, the purpose of Genesis is not to describe the creation of the world, but using a story to tell about the relationship between God and man, and God's redemptive nature.

steveOrino

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If something is to be a real "thing" surely it must exist independent of the observer

Not necessarily. Internal human spiritual experiences exist. They are real, and they do not exist independently of the observer.

YOu can apply math & science by, for example, applying statistics to how often a psychological state exists.

But in real life you interact spiritually with other people. (Using math & science isn't useful in these human interactions, unless maybe you believe yourself to be a Mr. Spock or something). If you know what it is like to experience love or hate you have had a spiritual experience.

But then that type of 'spirituality' cannot in any way be connected to organised religion.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in an afterlife? Do you believe that God controls who will go to this afterlife? To be real, these things must exist independantly of the observer, for our internal experiences all die with us.

and beowolf said:

Quote

Looks like you are equating emotions with spiritualism? You still haven't made a case for god being real.

That is correct. I haven't made a case for the specific existence of a personal god.

I haven't gotten that far with my argument yet. (and I don't think I'll bother here, on the internet, to try to argue anyone out of atheism.)

I am simply establishing a precedent that spirituality exists.

And when you interact with another person or with the world spiritually, you don't use math and science to do it. (You don't respond with a mathematical or scientific analysis when discussing grief over the death of a loved one, for example.)

To a fiercely dogmatic atheist, spiritual experiences are epistemological annoyances. They can't deny that they experience them every day, however.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JackC 0]

Speedracer, all you have done is asserted that spirituality is an emotion. Emotions are caused by chemicals in the brain interacting with the synapses.

If that is all spirituality is then why the hell are we having this discussion? I'll happily agree with you that the chemicals in your brain make you think god loves you. I'll even agree that the feeling you have really exists and is quite powerful. This in no way proves, or even establishes a precident that your emotions are based on a real entity known as god.

Throwing out the rational, anylitical, scientific method of thinking when it comes to spiritual matters wont help to figure it out for yourself.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I am simply establishing a precedent that spirituality exists.

As far as I can tell you haven't established that spirituality exists, but you have just renamed it. Emotions equal spiritualism. I think many people would argue with you over that. Your definition of spiritualism seems to be at odds with the dictionary definition.


spir·it·u·al·ism /ˈspɪrɪtʃuəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-i-choo-uh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the belief or doctrine that the spirits of the dead, surviving after the mortal life, can and do communicate with the living, esp. through a person (a medium) particularly susceptible to their influence.
2. the practices or phenomena associated with this belief.
3. the belief that all reality is spiritual.
4. Metaphysics. any of various doctrines maintaining that the ultimate reality is spirit or mind.
5. spiritual quality or tendency.
6. insistence on the spiritual side of things, as in philosophy or religion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1825–35; spiritual + -ism]

—Related forms
spir·it·u·al·is·tic, adjective
spir·it·u·al·is·ti·cal·ly, adverb

[billvon 2,402]

>How in blue blazes can believing an assumtion and ignoring all
>the contrary evidence, even when it is overwelming, be anything other
>than inherently bad?

If it saves someone's life, lets them kick a drug habit, stop stealing, get through school etc. then it's a good thing. Scientific accuracy is subordinate to recovery when you're trying to help an addict or a criminal turn their lives around.

To put it another way - which is better for society? A criminal with a good scientific background who rejects religion, or a baker who thinks that the earth was created 6000 years ago - and as part of his belief, has made the decision to be a good father, an upstanding member of the community, a generous donor to charitable causes etc? Which of those people is 'good' and which of those people is 'bad?'

[JackC 0]

It does not take religion to make a man moral so that's a strawman but that aside, from your argument I take it you're prepared to say the ends justify the means?

How much does it really benefit society to do away with evidence in favour of assumption. Guantanamo is full of assumptions.

[billvon 2,402]

> It does not take religion to make a man moral so that's a strawman . . .

I didn't claim morality requires religion. But some people DO find morality through religion, and that's a fact of life, not a strawman.

>from your argument I take it you're prepared to say the ends justify the means?

The ends justify the means, provided the means are moral/legal. I am sure you agree with this; it's the basis behind saying that someone should stay in school even if it's expensive and no fun - because the results will justify the means to get those results. It's a tradeoff most people make daily.

>How much does it really benefit society to do away with evidence in favour of assumption.

If you're a medieval english literature teacher? It's doesn't much matter. Whatever makes you happy. And if an unfounded assumption makes you a better teacher/father/citizen, why, good for you.

If you're a scientist, and you decide to replace experimental results with assumption, that's bad.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

That is correct. I haven't made a case for the specific existence of a personal god.

I haven't gotten that far with my argument yet. (and I don't think I'll bother here, on the internet, to try to argue anyone out of atheism.)

I am simply establishing a precedent that spirituality exists.

No you're not. You're establishing that emotions exist and then you are calling them "spirituality". A type of spirituality that is not remotely connected to the existance of any form of deity.

All in all, little bit of a waste of time, really.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

If you're a medieval english literature teacher? It's doesn't much matter. Whatever makes you happy. And if an unfounded assumption makes you a better teacher/father/citizen, why, good for you.

Really? You really believe that?

OK let's assume I'm a teacher of medieval English literature. I teach the unfounded assumption that when Chaucer wrote "Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote" he wasn't actually indicating the start of spring and the end of a brutal winter as is usually understood but instead he was explaining how his girlfriend Aprill, left him for some bloke named Shoures Soote. Because of my assumptions all my pupils fail their exams and I get fired. Yay for me.

I'm not buying it.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Speedracer, all you have done is asserted that spirituality is an emotion.

Not entirely. Love is a bit more than an emotion. Actually, when you love someone you experience a whole range of emotions depending on the circumstances, etc.

The fact that chemicals in the brain are associated with the internal experience is true, but that only means that the spirit and the physical world have some connection & interaction with one another.

The fact is that we all experience a sense of self. And we interact with one another based on the assumption that a sense of self is real. Even if that sense of self is affected or connected with chemicals in the brain doesn't mean that the sense of self doesn't exist.

You interact with other people spiritually all the time.

(and as you pointed out, this alone does not prove the existence of God as defined by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. I'm not trying to go that far here. What I am trying to do is point out that we as human beings experience some things physically by external acts of quantifiable observation, and experience other things spiritually and internally.

To a human being, love is as real as gravity, but you approach each differently.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JackC 0]

Quote

Not entirely. Love is a bit more than an emotion. Actually, when you love someone you experience a whole range of emotions depending on the circumstances, etc.

One emotion, a cocktail of emotions it doesn't matter. They have no reality outside of the person feeling those emotions. No matter how real they are to the person, and they are real, they are still personal and subjective.

Quote

The fact that chemicals in the brain are associated with the internal experience is true, but that only means that the spirit and the physical world have some connection & interaction with one another

And science can investigate that interaction despite you saying it can't or shouldn't or you personally not wanting to.

Quote

The fact is that we all experience a sense of self. And we interact with one another based on the assumption that a sense of self is real. Even if that sense of self is affected or connected with chemicals in the brain doesn't mean that the sense of self doesn't exist.

Giant so what? If you have a point beyond "emotions are real" I'd appreciate you hurrying up and getting to it.

Quote

You interact with other people spiritually all the time.

That's only true If I accept your emotion=spirituality definition. If I take the dictionary definition of spirituality, then you're wrong.

Quote

What I am trying to do is point out that we as human beings experience some things physically by external acts of quantifiable observation, and experience other things spiritually and internally.

Again only if we accept your emotion=spirituality definition. If we accept the dictionary definition, you haven't pointed out anything.

[billvon 2,402]

>Because of my assumptions all my pupils fail their exams and I get fired.

I was talking about religious beliefs, not "medieval english literature" beliefs.

But let's go there. Who do you want teaching a class on religion? A christian who says "this is what I believe, but Hinduism claims . . ." or a scientist who says "this is all a bunch of crap! None of it is valid in the slightest." Which one is going to produce students who can pass their exams?

[JackC 0]

I was talking about the stupidity of doing away with evidence in favour of assumption as a general principle but to answer your question:

In a religion class, I'd want someone who can teach what everyone believes. I wouldn't want religion in a school taught by a preist or an imam, I'd want it taught by someone who can remain objective not someone who is defined by their subjectiveness.