EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[MysticPhD]

What religion is your family of origin? In what religion were you raised?

This personal question is reasonable and relevant how? My family was Catholic . . . I never believed but went along to get along until my early teens when I abandoned all pretense and became an avowed atheist Buddhist pursuing meditation. I remained such for 18+ years until the breakthrough meditation. The remaining decades since I spent pursuing my synthesis and trying to find something that made sense to me. Jesus did . . . on so many levels. Your evaluation of my Christianity is irrelevant to me.

 

[MysticPhD]

You're mistaken. Nope, it has nothing to do with your avatar, but with your constant, repeated, and false attacks on science. THERE IS NO IMPLICIT DENIAL OF GOD, by separation from nature or any other way.

The implication impairment seems to be epidemic on this forum.

If you want science to care, and to take a stand on the issue, then you're seeking to destroy the source of its strength, that is, you're attacking it. Just like the Discovery Institute.

I am nothing like the fraudulent Discovery Institute and am not attacking science . . . just pointing out the obvious . . . which Luna so eloquently summarized in a single sentence . . . yet you and others seem incapable of seeing it.

I'm pretty liberal on what I'll include under the rubric of Christian, but you go too far. The core belief of all 3 Abrahamic religions is that God created the world. If you reject that, then you can't be Christian. If you accept it, you can't be panentheist.

Who appointed you arbiter-in-chief of ANYTHING? Better yet . . . who would ever think you were?

 

[Autodidact]

This personal question is reasonable and relevant how? My family was Catholic . . . I never believed but went along to get along until my early teens when I abandoned all pretense and became an avowed atheist Buddhist pursuing meditation. I remained such for 18+ years until the breakthrough meditation. The remaining decades since I spent pursuing my synthesis and trying to find something that made sense to me. Jesus did . . . on so many levels. Your evaluation of my Christianity is irrelevant to me.

It's not relevant to this thread. I'm exploring a theory that when people have these revelatory experiences, which I think are very real and valuable, they tend to interpret them in accord with their prior religious training. So far I'm batting 100% on it. It's a neuroscience thing. I'm very interested in mystical experiences and their implications. What the implications are, in your case or others, would be the subject of an entirely different thread.

In any case, don't be so suspicious and fearful. Don't try to figure out why someone wants you to answer the question, (why? so you can frame your answer to anticipate and defeat their argument?) Just answer it. It's good manners.

As for my evaluation of your Christianity, I do adhere to the silly concepts that words have meanings, and sticking to them promotes comprehension. You use words to mean whatever you like, then wonder why people have trouble understanding you.

 

[Autodidact]

The implication impairment seems to be epidemic on this forum. I am nothing like the fraudulent Discovery Institute and am not attacking science . . . just pointing out the obvious . . . which Luna so eloquently summarized in a single sentence . . . yet you and others seem incapable of seeing it. Who appointed you arbiter-in-chief of ANYTHING? Better yet . . . who would ever think you were?

It's a factual question. You disagree that the statement "God created the world," is a core belief for the Abrahamic religions? I think you'll find your self in a distinct minority. My disagreement with that statement is why I found myself no longer a member of my religion of origin, Judaism.

And sorry, you've been railing against science for 20 pages.

 

[MysticPhD]

It's not relevant to this thread. I'm exploring a theory that when people have these revelatory experiences, which I think are very real and valuable, they tend to interpret them in accord with their prior religious training. So far I'm batting 100% on it. It's a neuroscience thing. I'm very interested in mystical experiences and their implications. What the implications are, in your case or others, would be the subject of an entirely different thread.

Well the correlation in this case is hardly confirmatory. I was never a believer in Catholicism and spent far more time as an atheist Buddhist. I was not remotely sympathetic to the Christian God, especially not the authoritarian one in Catholicism. I spent a great deal of time exploring ALL the possibilities and their relationship to reality as science depicts it. IT was not an immediate return to a previous belief system. It was a discovery of it using a "spiritual DNA template" that seemed to confirm the expectations attributed to the Christ.

In any case, don't be so suspicious and fearful. Don't try to figure out why someone wants you to answer the question, (why? so you can frame your answer to anticipate and defeat their argument?) Just answer it. It's good manners.

I can hardly be characterized as suspicious and fearful . . . just private, especially online.

As for my evaluation of your Christianity, I do adhere to the silly concepts that words have meanings, and sticking to them promotes comprehension. You use words to mean whatever you like, then wonder why people have trouble understanding you.

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus as the Son of God has some importance to our relationship with God. I absolutely believe that. A Christian believes that Jesus and God are One. I absolutely believe that (they are the same consciousness in resonance) . A Christian believes that because of Jesus's death and rebirth as Spirit we all have access to God through His Holy Spirit (consciousness) in "love of God and each other." I absolutely believe that. On the substantive issues there is no difference . . . only on the beliefs that motivate the identification with Christ or some specific church.

 

[themadhair]

Ok, well the way I've read Mystic is that's he advocating the view that science has not killed God. His beef is not with science, but with a growing public perception of science that a few vocal scientists and atheists are happy to promote.

I agree with you comments regarding the falsity of basing atheism on logic and science (although I can present compelling evidence that science/education can make it more likely to abandon theism but that is a different discussion). At this point I simply do not believe your comment represents Mystics beef – I think he genuinely does have a beef with science. Consider some of his comments:

Doesn’t evolution, by its nature of selecting those best predisposed to survival, not induce survival instinct?

You have the causality backwards . . . maybe causal dyslexia is the problem with seeing implications of fundamental assumptions. You cannot make nature a SEPARATE concern without IMPLICITLY creating a separate "god" to explain what you find . . . with the attributes of indifference and purposeless.

Just like design is everywhere too I imagine.

How could it not be? Do you have a better explanation for its existence and consistency? I'm listening?

The need to imagine science has a position on god(s) isn’t a reference to misuse of science, it seems to signify a perceived philosophical difference that forms the basis of his/her argument.

My problem is with the implied position endemic to the use of a separate nature as the subject of the investigations AS IF there were some scientific validity for doing so.

I think the following comment is quite interesting. He is happy to maintain that science has taken a mistaken position, but not so happy to elucidate on what that mistaken position is:

This has gone around the blocks quite a few times already, but without being able to ascertain what this position science is supposed to have mistakenly taken (due to total vagueness on what god(s) science took a position on and a refusal to define such) it is likely to go around the blocks a few more times.

True . . . as long as you fail to see even when it is spelled out for you in detail.

Because you have accounted for everything that is involved INCLUDING the FLIPPER! . . NOT SO for mutations . . . you are missing the flipper and calling it nature with its mathematical propensity to flip randomly.

There are many flippers actually - gene duplications, translocations, ionising rays, etc. To refer back to my coin-flip analogy, you are essentially arguing that because we can’t predict the result of a coin toss we are without an explanation for how coin-tossing works. That pretty much is the argument.

When scientists express the probablility (or randomness) of mutation etc. in mathmatical terms, the lay public hears math = science = nature explained without need for God.
But, uncertainty, the source of creativity, can equally be viewed as an attribute of God.

This boils down to the same analogy I posed to Mystic. If you need to use probability to predict the result of a coin toss – does that mean you are without an explanation for how coin-tossing works? You can attribute uncertainty (uncertainty in the sense that the required measurements haven’t been made to make them certain) to god(s) if you want. That doesn’t make an explanation lacking or render science biased on the matter. As I said previously, while the public may misinterpret the science, it isn’t the public where Mystic’s beef appears to lie.

 

[DarkSun]

Okay, I just read through the newest collection of posts. Honestly, I don't understand what your disagreement with Mystic is.

Essentially, he is saying that scientists who completely refute the possible existence of God are doing so based on no empirical evidence, and he has frequently admitted that scientists who affirm the existence of God are doing the same.

Since we all agree that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God based on the current evidence, why is it so hard to leave it to the individual to believe what they will and agree to disagree? After all, the disagreement is abitrary, and quite frankly, extremely petty.

 

[themadhair]

Okay, I just read through the newest collection of posts. Honestly, I don't understand what your disagreement with Mystic is.

Essentially, he is saying that scientists who completely refute the possible existence of God are doing so based on no empirical evidence, and he has frequently admitted that scientists who affirm the existence of God are doing the same.

Unfortunately, if this was what he was saying, there wouldn’t be a disagreement. This is simply the pretext he is attempting to use to introduce his actual argument:

Also, you did say earlier that it was a goal of science. Remember the whole "They found design, but decided to refuse to accept it and found any way they could to explain it away" thing? So, this would seem to be backtracking from you.

That is going out of their way to use mathematical "non-explanations" to AVOID acknowledging what I advocate . . . not the same thing. It is the general mathematical ignorance and this use of "non-explanations" as if they were explanations that is the problem.

Emphasis added. This is what he is advocating:

Just like design is everywhere too I imagine.

How could it not be? Do you have a better explanation for its existence and consistency? I'm listening?

As I previously commented, whoever called ID was spot on. He is free to believe ID if he wants, but he shouldn’t be surprised if people defend science against his attempted hijacking.

 

[DarkSun]

Unfortunately, if this was what he was saying, there wouldn’t be a disagreement. This is simply the pretext he is attempting to use to introduce his actual argument:


Emphasis added. This is what he is advocating:

As I previously commented, whoever called ID was spot on. He is free to believe ID if he wants, but he shouldn’t be surprised if people defend science against his attempted hijacking.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the theory of Intelligen Design, either.

 

[themadhair]

Science can neither prove nor disprove the theory of Intelligen Design, either.

It's a theory now? Since when?

 

[DarkSun]

It's a theory now? Since when?

Well, not a scientific theory. That's just what a lot of people go around calling it.

Anyway, I've said my piece. So. I'm off. Ciao.

 

[painted wolf]

I disagreed with Mystics original position: That science has an anti-god bias because they don't actively push the idea that god may exist.

That position has since evolved... or at least adapted.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The implication impairment seems to be epidemic on this forum.

There is, without question, an impairment present in this thread.

I am nothing like the fraudulent Discovery Institute and am not attacking science . . .

You're wrong - on both counts.

 

[doppelganger]

There is, without question, an impairment present in this thread.

It's the same one pointed out back around page 2 or 3 - someone is mistaking an interpretation of their personal spiritual experience for an "absolute truth," and masochistically insisting that this is the only way everybody should interpret their reality. In short, misunderstanding the philosophy of science by failing to recognize how a theistic interpretation of ontological reality is polluting his thoughts on the subject.

The result is complete confusion in his arguments and a giant game of "whack-a-mole" as one argument gets bashed down and it changes form for the next round only to switch back when the modified version gets whacked down too.

Bottom line: if you want to set up a straw man and call it "science" and then knock it down . . . don't be too surprised when people who are careful about how they understand the philosophy of science are unimpressed.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Perhaps the most accurate description possible - Whack A Mole.

I like it.

 

[doppelganger]

Ironically, (though not surprisingly), MysticPhD is engaging the exact fallacy he claims to denounce: confusing an assessment of probabilities with ontological truth. He had a grand spiritual experience which he has interpreted to correspond to an ontological reality. Nevertheless, this is at best a probability assessment. His experience could have nothing to do with "God" and could have been the result of contaminated food he'd eaten causing hallucinations, or even government spooks using secret technology to beam thoughts into his head. Nothing - and that means nothing - can be proven or disproven to an ontological certainty. This is why "science" properly says nothing about "God." That should not be mistaken for science being anti-"God" - it's just that science deals in testable hypotheses, and "God" simply isn't one - no matter how sincere one is in clinging to one's interpretation that their wonderful experiences were of "God."

 

[themadhair]

Perhaps the most accurate description possible - Whack A Mole.

God is nature.....

 

[doppelganger]

God is nature.....

Did anyone see a Trojan horse gallop by here . . . ?

 

[Magic Man]

It is if no pro-active effort is made to correct the misunderstanding of conflict . . and some leading proponents (Dawkins, et al.) go out of their way to confirm it with their theist/atheist scale of probabilities of God.

In other words, to you "Dawkins and other scientists try to use science to disprove God" means "Science says there is no God". That's quite a big stretch. It would be better if you just realized that some scientists have an agenda. That does not mean that science in general has an agenda, though.

That is going out of their way to use mathematical "non-explanations" to AVOID acknowledging what I advocate . . . not the same thing. It is the general mathematical ignorance and this use of "non-explanations" as if they were explanations that is the problem.

Was that supposed to refute the idea that you think it's science's goal to deny God? If so, you failed.

ANY attributes of God/Nature that are not validated by science are OPINION and subject to disputation.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here or how it's relevant to my comment to which it was a response.

Some here exhibit the same ignorance as the general public about what the mathematics tells us. But it is the general public that suffers most from this antagonistic schism.

You're right that some here display that ignorance. However, I think you're mistaken about who those "some" are. For instance, you would be the prime example of one who displays such ignorance, not just about mathematics, but about science in general.

 

[Magic Man]

I really have not encountered such bizarre thinking, passed off as intelligence, prior to this (on the part of MysticDoc - not yourself and others, of course).

Maybe you missed the musical interlude posted by Dopp. The title is a big clue to someone else (or possibly not someone else...) who would fit you criteria.