51% of scientists believe in God/higher power

[Meow Mix]

How do you know love exists , isn't just a hormone surge and isn't just a mutual relationship based on give and take?

I know Allah exists for many bigger reasons and smaller simple ones too. All i have to do to is wish for something and it comes right infront of me in the most unexpected of ways, without me having to try for it. Like just a few days ago, i had this craving for a nice dark fudge, a good cupa coffee and some condiment that we have in our region. The moment i open the door outside, my friend( who just came back from another city) was standing outside and invited me in , just out of the blue, with ALL these things that i had just 'wished' of having that day but hadn't contemplated to be happening so quickly infront of my eyes.

Ofcorse you will name it coincidence, but I feel that Allah listens to me and my thoughts more closely than anyone can. This happens to me a LOT of times and makes one think that somebody out there is there for you, can overwhelm you with joy in so many ways, listen to you closely and know all your deepest wishes that you don't really even tell anyone about. Makes one fall in love with him over and over again ( ahh the molten fudge *faints* )

I know that love exists for me because it's raw experience, it's a qualia: note that we can know qualia exist because we experience them directly. God, or Allah, is not a qualia: you may experience a feeling for what you think is Allah (and that feeling itself is a qualia) but the existence of Allah remains unevidenced.

To make the analogy more obvious, I love Alicia. The experience of love is qualia, but Alicia is not qualia -- but luckily, I have lots and lots of evidence that Alicia actually exists, so my love for Alicia is entirely rational.

Now how about loving Allah? Love is qualia, that part doesn't require support -- but the Allah existing part does require support.

I most definitely would say it's highly likely the fudge and coffee incidence is coincidence and an example of confirmation bias (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): I bet you forget about all the times you want something and don't get it, or write it off as "not in Allah's plan" for you, but you remember the times where wishing for something you do get it.

I don't consider that very good evidence because confirmation bias, while not directly a fallacy, is not a very good truth-seeking method.

 

[painted wolf]

This pretty much reflects what I've seen thus far in my scientific journey.

I should note that none of the religious scientists ever insert their faith into their work... they aren't seeing god in molecules or conflating mtDNA Eve with the bible character.

Religion is more than literal adherence to a dogma.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

I know that love exists for me because it's raw experience, it's a qualia: note that we can know qualia exist because we experience them directly. God, or Allah, is not a qualia: you may experience a feeling for what you think is Allah (and that feeling itself is a qualia) but the existence of Allah remains unevidenced.

To make the analogy more obvious, I love Alicia. The experience of love is qualia, but Alicia is not qualia -- but luckily, I have lots and lots of evidence that Alicia actually exists, so my love for Alicia is entirely rational.

Now how about loving Allah? Love is qualia, that part doesn't require support -- but the Allah existing part does require support.

I most definitely would say it's highly likely the fudge and coffee incidence is coincidence and an example of confirmation bias (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): I bet you forget about all the times you want something and don't get it, or write it off as "not in Allah's plan" for you, but you remember the times where wishing for something you do get it.

I don't consider that very good evidence because confirmation bias, while not directly a fallacy, is not a very good truth-seeking method.

Actually, Meow Mix, mystics the world over have emphasized that their experiences -- including their experiences of "deity", when they have them -- are immediate, unmediated, and direct. Therefore, I suspect that at least many mystics would assert what they experience during a mystical experience that they label "deity" is a qualia. I could be wrong about that, but that's my best guess.

By the way, I put "deity" in quotes because tis more than obvious that the "deity" of mystics is not the deity of non-mystics and bears almost no resemblance to the deities of non-mystics.

 

[AxisMundi]

I think it's actually important for theists to realize this fact more than atheists. So many look at science and theories as being "anti-religious" or going against god. If they realize that all these scientists have varying beliefs about the Universe and are from very different backgrounds, maybe they wouldn't be so harsh and biased against the scientific theories such as evolution. Even though these scientists all hold different beliefs that can lead to biased research, science still works.

An excellent point.

Unfortunatly, these aren't "true Christians" since they defy the word of god.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually, Meow Mix, mystics the world over have emphasized that their experiences -- including their experiences of "deity", when they have them -- are immediate, unmediated, and direct. Therefore, I suspect that at least many mystics would assert what they experience during a mystical experience that they label "deity" is a qualia. I could be wrong about that, but that's my best guess.

By the way, I put "deity" in quotes because tis more than obvious that the "deity" of mystics is not the deity of non-mystics and bears almost no resemblance to the deities of non-mystics.

Wouldn't make much sense though because all they're really saying exists is an experience

Experiences don't correlate on a 1:1 ratio with reality...

 

[Magic Man]

You really don't hold yourself to be much different than a chimpanzee? :sarcastic

I don't know about Phil, but I sure don't.

Kanzi
"Kanzi (born October 28, 1980), also known by the lexigram , is a male Bonobo who has been featured in several studies on great ape language. According to Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, a primatologist who has studied the bonobo throughout her life, Kanzi has exhibited advanced linguistic aptitude.

Paul Raffaele, at Savage-Rumbaugh's request, performed a Maori War Dance for the Bonobos. This dance includes thigh-slapping, chest-thumping, and hollering. Almost all the bonobos present interpreted this as an aggressive display, and reacted with loud screams, tooth-baring, and pounding the walls and floor. All but Kanzi, who remained perfectly calm; he then communicated with Savage-Rumbaugh using bonobo vocalizations; Savage-Rumbaugh understood these vocalizations, and said to Raffaele "he'd like you to do it again just for him, in a room out back, so the others won't get upset.” So a private performance in another room was successfully, peacefully and happily carried out.

In one demonstration shown on the television show Champions of the Wild, Kanzi was shown playing the arcade game Pac-Man and understanding how to beat it."

We're not all that different from other apes. Sure, we have some heightened brain functions, but nothing that they couldn't achieve with enough time to evolve brains like ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzi#cite_note-Smithsonain-7

 

[painted wolf]

Wouldn't make much sense though because all they're really saying exists is an experience

Experiences don't correlate on a 1:1 ratio with reality...

Yes, but to mystics all that ultimately matters is ones experiences.

What is reality after all? Simply shared experience.

wa:do

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Wouldn't make much sense though because all they're really saying exists is an experience

Experiences don't correlate on a 1:1 ratio with reality...

I don't know of anything that does.

 

[Sunstone]

Wouldn't make much sense though because all they're really saying exists is an experience

Yes, all they are really saying exists is an experience. That's true of at least some mystics. Probably at least half of the few I know about.

Experiences don't correlate on a 1:1 ratio with reality...

I have to go with Painted Wolf on this one: reality, given our method(s) of determining what is real, is simply shared experience.

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes, all they are really saying exists is an experience. That's true of at least some mystics. Probably at least half of the few I know about.



I have to go with Painted Wolf on this one: reality, given our method(s) of determining what is real, is simply shared experience.

I agree with you both too.
If you accept that reality is no more than shared experience does that in your view have implications for 'science'?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it does. It implies that science's scope does not include purely subjective experiences, regardless of how real or important they may turn out to be.

 

[Starsoul]

Wouldn't make much sense though because all they're really saying exists is an experience

Experiences don't correlate on a 1:1 ratio with reality...

How then when you haven't experienced evolution from a chimp to a man, you believe it when some guy says so? Your in-experience makes the story of evolution unreal, irrelevent . How can two forms at the extreme or at midway evolutionary ends still co- exist? How can we both have healthy chimps and healthy human beings, and none of them competing each other for survival? heck they dont even have the same habitat preferences.

 

[Smoke]

How then when you haven't experienced evolution from a chimp to a man, you believe it when some guy says so?

Anyone who believes that is mistaken. Humans didn't evolve from chimps. We just have a common ancestry, as we do with all other animals. In the case of chimps, our common ancestry is -- in evolutionary terms -- very recent.

 

[LuisDantas]

(Biological) Evolution works in a far different way from that which you assume, Starsoul.

 

[Magic Man]

How then when you haven't experienced evolution from a chimp to a man, you believe it when some guy says so? Your in-experience makes the story of evolution unreal, irrelevent . How can two forms at the extreme or at midway evolutionary ends still co- exist? How can we both have healthy chimps and healthy human beings, and none of them competing each other for survival? heck they dont even have the same habitat preferences.

1) You can view the evidence for evolution for yourself.

2) All lifeforms are undergoing evolution at all times. There is no "extreme end" or "midway". At one point there was a type of animal that eventually branched off into chimps, other apes and us. We are all still around in the same way that Italian, Spanish and English are still around.

 

[Quiddity]

I think it's crude and ignorant when people expect God to show up through physical evidence, so we may be of like mind here

Evidence for God that would convice skeptics like me sure isn't going to be in the form of a rock somewhere that says "Yep this was carved by me, Allah" or "God" or whatever it wants to go by...

It would come in the form of metaphysical evidence -- ontological, epistemic, teleological, whatever evidence that demonstrates the necessity or even probable existence of such a being; or I would also consider it pretty convincing if I had a revelation that I could verify externally to me such as if God or Allah or whoever sent a revelation to me and my friends at the same time so that when I said "Hey I had what I think was a dream about meeting God and he said this and that" and they were all like "OMG really? Me too!"

Other than that kind of stuff gods aren't in the empirical arena. Science is limited to that, so it's never gonna say jack about gods -- that is, unless those gods are tied to empirical events such as "causing a worldwide flood" in which case we can say such a god doesn't exist. Otherwise though, nope, not related to science at all!

What she said...

 

[Quiddity]

How then when you haven't experienced evolution from a chimp to a man, you believe it when some guy says so? Your in-experience makes the story of evolution unreal, irrelevent . How can two forms at the extreme or at midway evolutionary ends still co- exist? How can we both have healthy chimps and healthy human beings, and none of them competing each other for survival? heck they dont even have the same habitat preferences.

Macroevolution is what you speak of here. It's not something you can specifically see other then the evidence we have (which is plenty). Microevolution, on the other hand you can see occur in your lifetime. I happens all the time.

 

[Man of Faith]

This would seem to suggest that science doesn't prove or discount that there could be a God. Thanks for the link, it should come in handy when debating Atheists and evolutionists, because they tend to cling to science as evidence for their position.

 

[Nepenthe]

This would seem to suggest that science doesn't prove or discount that there could be a God. Thanks for the link, it should come in handy when debating Atheists and evolutionists, because they tend to cling to science as evidence for their position.

I don't find that most atheists "cling" to science to support atheism; the non-existence of a god is better supported by philosophical arguments and logic than science. It's not so much "clinging" to science but the requirement for empirical, repeatable evidence and such evidence is completely lacking for an intercepting creator god. If your god is simply an aloof deity who doesn't intervene in the empirical it's safe from any inquiry.

 

[Falvlun]

This would seem to suggest that science doesn't prove or discount that there could be a God. Thanks for the link, it should come in handy when debating Atheists and evolutionists, because they tend to cling to science as evidence for their position.

Do note, however, that the percentage of non-religious (atheists, agnostics, etc) are much higher in the scientific community than in the general population.

Also note that we (meaning most educated atheists/agnostics) vocally state that science doesn't disprove God. In fact, we are continually telling disgruntled theists that science says nothing, either pro or con, about the existence of God (as there is no empircal evidence to test.) It is generally the disgruntled theist that tries to devalue science by claiming it is anti-god.

However, science does allow us to evaluate claims made by theists about their particular god that would fall into the purview of the testable, natural world. Thus, evolution is evidence that God did not create fully formed organisms in a literal six day time period.