EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Autodidact]

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.

What are you assuming it's not confirmatory of? I don't believe I've drawn any conclusions yet. In science, we first gather data, then draw tentative conclusions. My data indicates that the overwhelming majority of people who experience an intense, revelatory mystical experience interpret it in terms of their religion of early training. Further, all the one's I've asked (here at RF) assert vehemently that there is no connection between the two. Your response is almost identical to others I have received. What do you think we should conclude from this data?

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.

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

Take a chance--just answer the question without first asking what it's for.

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.

Well, I'm pretty sure that "God" word in there refers to the creator of the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Then that's what he should say. However, he's made it clear that he's not sticking with that. He goes farther to say that it is actually science that claims there is no God, not just some scientists or atheists. If he said what you said here, then I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

I might have missed it since I haven't read every post in detail, but where did Mystic admit that scientists who affirm the existence of God are doing the same? From everything I've read from him, he wants scientists to admit that things like DNA are examples of intelligent design (even though he doesn't specifically like that label).

He is saying that science pushes the idea of no God. That's where the problem comes in.

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.

I have no problem if Mystic wants to say that he believes in this God of his, but that is his personal take on things, and that he doesn't expect science to uphold his personal convictions. However, he doesn't seem to want to admit that. He thinks science is doing something it's not (claiming that there is no God), and he wants it to stop. It can't stop something it's not currently doing in the first place.

 

[doppelganger]

I might have missed it since I haven't read every post in detail, but where did Mystic admit that scientists who affirm the existence of God are doing the same? From everything I've read from him, he wants scientists to admit that things like DNA are examples of intelligent design (even though he doesn't specifically like that label).

And not just intelligent design, but ID evidencing a purpose of his "God" image. I asked a simple question early in this thread that went unanswered - what does "God" explain that the rules and structures of grammar (i.e. the constraints of ordered thought) and a sound epistemology of science cannot?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... could have been the result of contaminated food he'd eaten causing hallucinations,

YES! Another person that is on board with my "peyote" theory as well!!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

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

I saw one with no legs get rolled up to the gate.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I've been trying to recall this quote for the last week or so. It is so apropos for this thread:

"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know."
- Abraham Lincoln

 

[MysticPhD]

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:

The intransigence reflected in the unwillingness to accept MY OWN claims as valid to impute some OTHER agenda is illuminating. It validates a suspicion I have held for a while that there are fundamentalist science believers who are as mentally rigid and thick as the religious fundies. The arrogance of preferring your own inferences to expressed views is typical of that mindset.

I am also tired of the ignorant carping about my understanding and capabilities. I usually don't provide background information because it is always perceived as boasting . . and I am too old and retired to have to play such juvenile games. But this harassment about my background and understanding is just as bad (6 of one half a dozen . . .). I am a Mensan with a tested IQ of 165 and a Professor Emeritus who taught Graduate Quantitative Methods and Psychometrics for 30 years. I used my skills for proprietary Social Psychological research for businesses as a consultant . . . much of which is reflected in the advertising and marketing practices of companies like P&G. It is clear to me that implication impairment is definitely a problem on this forum.

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:

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.

This is the mental rigidity of which I speak. There is ONLY ONE flipper but a lot of WAYS to flip . . . and you have not and cannot identify it . . . so you resort to the next stage up in your Ponzi scheme . . . the WAYS of flipping you CAN describe and explain . . . giving the IMPRESSION that you have explained it ALL. But the ONE flipper (Nature/God) that INVOKES the WAY that you can explain has NOT been explained. Your scientific explanation just mathematically masquerades the INVOKER as part of the secondary explanation of the WAY. THAT is what creates the IMPLICATIONS that you so vehemently deny (or are too impaired to see).

 

[themadhair]

The intransigence reflected in the unwillingness to accept MY OWN claims as valid to impute some OTHER agenda is illuminating.

Actually we accept your claims regarding your beliefs. We are just pointing out that those beliefs are making you misinterpret science and see implications that are not there.

I am also tired of the ignorant carping about my understanding and capabilities.

We sort of base you understanding on the posts you wrote. But feel free to BAWWW because people disagree.

It is clear to me that implication impairment is definitely a problem on this forum.

To be frank, you are implying that the entirety of science is implication impaired and not just other posters here. If you are determined to see design you will see design. Without evidence either way science, by its very essence, cannot and will not take a position either way. I do find it amusing that you have made posts where you argued science should be neutral as well as making posts that denigrate it for not adhering to your philosophical/theological perception of design.

To be frank about it, after the whole god=nature and similar canards were bypassed, you are essentially accusing the scientific community of using mathematics and probability to avoid having to declare design. What reception did you truly expect on the basis of such an attitude?

[SIZE=-5]This is the mental rigidity of which I speak. There is ONLY ONE flipper but a lot of WAYS to flip . . . and you have not and cannot identify it . . . so you resort to the next stage up in your Ponzi scheme . . . the WAYS of flipping you CAN describe and explain . . . giving the IMPRESSION that you have explained it ALL. But the ONE flipper (Nature/God) that INVOKES the WAY that you can explain has NOT been explained. [SIZE=+10]Your scientific explanation just mathematically masquerades the INVOKER [/SIZE]as part of the secondary explanation of the WAY. THAT is what creates the IMPLICATIONS that you so vehemently deny (or are too impaired to see).[/SIZE]

I think at this stage the central points regarding explanations have been posted enough times, and in enough different ways, that there is nothing else to do but continue to point out where your theological and philosophical bias is creeping in.

 

[smitten508]

evolution isnt a lie, it can hold hands with creation anytime, you just have to give up the thought that the literal interpretation of scripture is the ONLY valid way to interpret...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I am a Mensan with a tested IQ of 165 and a Professor Emeritus who taught Graduate Quantitative Methods and Psychometrics for 30 years.

One would think that, with such a fine resume, you would be much quicker to grasp how desperately you are projecting your biases onto science.

For what it's worth - you are not the only member of this board that is either a member of Mensa, or qualified to be one (should they so choose). You are not the only person here that teaches (or has taught) college level courses.

I know that this comes as a shock to you - but there are others here that can process complex thoughts. Most of us simply reject your revaltory based attack on science.

 

[MysticPhD]

I give up. Just answer this and see if any lights come on. What IS Nature and what IS a natural process . . . phenomenologically not pragmatically? eg., try to avoid using the following: Nature is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a natural process is a process we observe that abides by Nature's laws. This is equivalent to: God is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a God process is a process we observe that abides by God's laws.

In other words . . . what I am seeking is a scientific justification for pretending you haven't taken a position on it and have really adopted a neutral position by clearly enunciating that neutral position in scientific terms.

 

[themadhair]

I give up. Just answer this and see if any lights come on. What IS Nature and what IS a natural process . . . phenomenologically not pragmatically? eg., try to avoid using the following: Nature is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a natural process is a process we observe that abides by Nature's laws. This is equivalent to: God is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a God process is a process we observe that abides by God's laws.

In other words . . . what I am seeking is a scientific justification for pretending you haven't taken a position on it and have really adopted a neutral position by clearly enunciating that neutral position in scientific terms.

Simple. Those natural laws are subject to revision should evidence/observation dictate. That they are not fixed, and based upon the current evidence/observation, is the foundation for science’s neutrality. This is simply another misinterpretation/misrepresentation on your part.

 

[doppelganger]

There's that Trojan horse again.

 

[themadhair]

No, just implication-impairness.

 

[doppelganger]

No, just implication-impairness.

Philosophy with a dirty mirror.

 

[themadhair]

^ How can anyone look at that and see the design?

 

[doppelganger]

 

[doppelganger]

BTW, MysticPhD, if you're interested in a one-on-one discussion with me, I'd be up for it, assuming of course you're interested in anything else about RF other than arguing in this one thread.

You'll find I'm much more hospitable to your argument than you might think I am (though I think you're still making an important mistake). If you want, read through topics I've started and you can get a picture of what I'm working with.

 

[MysticPhD]

Simple. Those natural laws are subject to revision should evidence/observation dictate. That they are not fixed, and based upon the current evidence/observation, is the foundation for science’s neutrality. This is simply another misinterpretation/misrepresentation on your part.

For what it's worth - you are not the only member of this board that is either a member of Mensa, or qualified to be one (should they so choose). You are not the only person here that teaches (or has taught) college level courses.

I know that this comes as a shock to you - but there are others here that can process complex thoughts. Most of us simply reject your revaltory based attack on science.

I am sure your are correct . . . but it would seem that they must all have better things to do than respond in this thread . . . witness the response above by themadhair . . . clearly a phenomenological explanation is something he has no clue about.