EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Autodidact]

I have to tell you, Mystic, your efforts were lost on me. All I got from your many posts is:

Panentheism.
An assertion that science assumes there is no God.

And a bizarre side trip into panentheistic Christianity as enlightened by a personal mystical significance.

Other than that you lost me completely. I have no idea what you're so mad about, frankly.

 

[MysticPhD]

I have to tell you, Mystic, your efforts were lost on me. All I got from your many posts is:
Panentheism.
An assertion that science assumes there is no God.
And a bizarre side trip into panentheistic Christianity as enlightened by a personal mystical significance.
Other than that you lost me completely. I have no idea what you're so mad about, frankly.

Understand. Discussions tend to take on a life of their own and diversions are par for the course . . . especially when there is so much ridicule from the outset. Adrenal stimulation only aids intellectual pursuits up to a point . . . then it deteriorates. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[lunamoth]

Then simply justify the ridiculous assertions you have been making that there is NOT an IMPLICIT denial and rejection of God by science. The reality of those two versions is not debatable. Explain the inability to see the implications of it.

Deary me. Mystic, science does not deny and reject God. That language is putting an inappropriate bias into your argument. Science does not, can not, assume God, but that is different from denying God or disproving God. That's not what I was reading in your early posts in this thread.

Because of the indeterminate nature of quantum physics, there is a limit to what we can absolutely know about the material universe. Science is pragmatic...it tells us what is useful, and so this limit is not a problem for the advancement of science. I really thought that it was this uncertainty that you were trying to get at in your argument about the use of mathmatics. Maybe it was, but now that is not at all clear. Anyway, quantum physics is not a proof for God any more than it is a proof against God.

I don't think you are a proponent of ID, but that point has gotten very muddled by some of the things you've been saying. I hope that with more time here at the forum you'll be better received. There are many intelligent, well-spoken members here and there is a lot of room for interesting conversation.

luna

 

[doppelganger]

I really think he has something to say. I pointed out as much in my first entre into this thread.

It's all about "unknowing," MysticPhd.

Knowledge is the opposite of wisdom.

 

[MysticPhD]

Deary me. Mystic, science does not deny and reject God. That language is putting an inappropriate bias into your argument. Science does not, can not, assume God, but that is different from denying God or disproving God. That's not what I was reading in your early posts in this thread.

I concede your point about injecting a bias . . . "implicitly deny and reject" would appear to be the "red cape" to the forum "bulls." Your understanding of my position is and has been spot on . . . it is the philosophical implications that I simply have to let go of here . . . my Dulcinea awaits.

Because of the indeterminate nature of quantum physics, there is a limit to what we can absolutely know about the material universe. Science is pragmatic...it tells us what is useful, and so this limit is not a problem for the advancement of science. I really thought that it was this uncertainty that you were trying to get at in your argument about the use of mathmatics. Maybe it was, but now that is not at all clear. Anyway, quantum physics is not a proof for God any more than it is a proof against God.

You were not incorrect and I am increasingly pleased by your obvious perspicacity! The work of Penrose and the quantum nature of the formation of consciousness is instrumental in my synthesis as are the limitations of our mathematics in representing the perturbatory nature of reality. The so-called indeterminacy is in the imperfections of our discrete measures of non-discrete "events" (identity issues . . . eg. e=mc-squared and e= hf). The assumption that there are "particles" (or "atoms" or "molecules" or substance, etc.) instead of "standing wave complexes of energy events in quantum time" (traffic jams) . . . is what confuses those trapped in a "physical world" mindset. But I have zero intention of getting into that quagmire after this wonderful exposure to the openmindedness here.

I don't think you are a proponent of ID, but that point has gotten very muddled by some of the things you've been saying.

I accept full responsibility for the confusion . . . the integrated details of my synthesis cannot be communicated in shorthand or summary form without it, apparently. I had hoped the philosophical aspects could have been addressed . . . but C'est la vie.

I hope that with more time here at the forum you'll be better received. There are many intelligent, well-spoken members here and there is a lot of room for interesting conversation.luna

The old "bad taste in the mouth" syndrome is operative at the moment, Luna . . . but bless your soul for all your support. Be well, Mystic

 

[lunamoth]

Thanks Mystic. I hope you stick around. :yes:

 

[Magic Man]

My version of God is the one that was at the heart of all the first scientific efforts because there was no such distinction between God and Nature . . . until all the inappropriate and autocratic interference by religious nutjobs. Just saying.

Again, I have no problem with pantheism or even panentheism. That's not quite what you've been arguing, though.

And now you want to finally put some blame where it's due (with the "religious nutjobs" comment? It took you long enough.

 

[MysticPhD]

Again, I have no problem with pantheism or even panentheism. That's not quite what you've been arguing, though.

And now you want to finally put some blame where it's due (with the "religious nutjobs" comment? It took you long enough.

My entire argument has been presaged from my earliest post by the schism created by the religious nutjobs, mball.

 

[Magic Man]

My entire argument has been presaged from my earliest post by the schism created by the religious nutjobs, mball.

Well, you sure didn't make it very clear then. One more thing, are you saying here that you think because those religious nutjobs did what they did that science came back saying that there is no god?

 

[MysticPhD]

Well, you sure didn't make it very clear then. One more thing, are you saying here that you think because those religious nutjobs did what they did that science came back saying that there is no god?

There are only two ways human beings deal with things . . . approach or avoidance. We approach the positive (pleasurable and rewarding) and we avoid the negative (unpleasant or punishing). Science chose the latter with regard to God.That has IMPLICATIONS . . . whether one chooses to see them or not.

 

[YmirGF]

There are only two ways human beings deal with things . . . approach or avoidance. We approach the positive (pleasurable and rewarding) and we avoid the negative (unpleasant or punishing). Science chose the latter with regard to God.That has IMPLICATIONS . . . whether one chooses to see them or not.

I'd suggest that reality is not quite so black and white, my friend. You are clearly an intelligent person, but unfortunately do not present your ideas very clearly.
If you care to share, what degrees or academic credentials do you possess?

 

[Magic Man]

There are only two ways human beings deal with things . . . approach or avoidance. We approach the positive (pleasurable and rewarding) and we avoid the negative (unpleasant or punishing). Science chose the latter with regard to God.That has IMPLICATIONS . . . whether one chooses to see them or not.

That doesn't even make sense. Science isn't trying to avoid a negative. It's simply ignoring something that it can't comment on. That's it. That's all there is to it.

 

[Autodidact]

There are only two ways human beings deal with things . . . approach or avoidance. We approach the positive (pleasurable and rewarding) and we avoid the negative (unpleasant or punishing). Science chose the latter with regard to God.That has IMPLICATIONS . . . whether one chooses to see them or not.

So no one is every neutral about anything?

 

[Jose Fly]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

When scientists express the probablility (or randomness) of mutation etc. in mathematical terms, the lay public hears math = science = nature explained without need for God.

And MysticPhD responded:

Eloquently summarized in a single sentence.

How can you agree with that? You told me that "nature = God" and natural explanations and "God willed" are "two NAMES for the same processes".

But now here you are, objecting to natural explanations for phenomena. I'm afraid at this point I have to agree with what seems to be a near consensus; you're either very confused or are intentionally obfuscating.

How can anyone who believes "nature = God" and that natural explanations and "God willed" are the same thing...then argue that science is "denying and rejecting God" by offering natural explanations for phenomena?

What exactly do you want? Do you want published papers to have footnotes to their explanation statements that say "This natural explanation is the same as a God willed process"? Or a disclaimer at the top of the paper saying, "This in no way denies the existance of God"?

 

[MysticPhD]

So no one is every neutral about anything?

Once a major societal conflict is raised . . . sides will be taken . . . the strength of the valences toward or against each side can be close to equal . . . and neutrality is a possibility but hardly ever a dominant one.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'd suggest that reality is not quite so black and white, my friend. You are clearly an intelligent person, but unfortunately do not present your ideas very clearly.
If you care to share, what degrees or academic credentials do you possess?

...keeping in mind of course, that degrees and academic credentials can create black and white generalizations, right?

 

[doppelganger]

Once a major societal conflict is raised . . . sides will be taken . . . the strength of the valences toward or against each side can be close to equal . . . and neutrality is a possibility but hardly ever a dominant one.

Only in the minds of the conflicted.

 

[Autodidact]

Once a major societal conflict is raised . . . sides will be taken . . . the strength of the valences toward or against each side can be close to equal . . . and neutrality is a possibility but hardly ever a dominant one.

You really don't understand science, do you?

 

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

"When scientists express the probablility (or randomness) of mutation etc. in mathematical terms, the lay public hears math = science = nature explained without need for God. "

How can you agree with that? You told me that "nature = God" and natural explanations and "God willed" are "two NAMES for the same processes".

But now here you are, objecting to natural explanations for phenomena. I'm afraid at this point I have to agree with what seems to be a near consensus; you're either very confused or are intentionally obfuscating.

How can anyone who believes "nature = God" and that natural explanations and "God willed" are the same thing...then argue that science is "denying and rejecting God" by offering natural explanations for phenomena?

THAT is the truly NEUTRAL view that is antagonistic to the NOT-NEUTRAL view that Nature is separate. Since the terms Nature and God are not scientifically differentiable . . . the terms Nature and natural are NOT philosophically neutral terms phenomenologically . . . especially in the relatively ignorant minds of the general public. Pragmatically they are unavoidable in science . . . but ignoring their culpability in the current controversy is just insensitive (or obtuse).

What exactly do you want? Do you want published papers to have footnotes to their explanation statements that say "This natural explanation is the same as a God willed process"? Or a disclaimer at the top of the paper saying, "This in no way denies the existance of God"?

I wish I had a sociologically workable answer for the conundrum of human ignorance that drives so many controversies. But what Dawkins, et al. are engaged in (under the IMPLIED imprimatur of science) as noted scientists is unconscionable. They are undifferentiable from the Fundamentalist nutjobs they denigrate and seek to wage holy war with. The bulk of moderate and reasonable scientists . . . like the bulk of moderate and reasonable Muslims . . . tolerate and do nothing to mitigate the damage done by radicals. The apologetic cries of "But that's NOT Islam" . . .or "But that's NOT science" seem faint comfort.

 

[rockondon]

There are only two ways human beings deal with things . . . approach or avoidance. We approach the positive (pleasurable and rewarding) and we avoid the negative (unpleasant or punishing). Science chose the latter with regard to God.That has IMPLICATIONS . . . whether one chooses to see them or not.

Science is objective. Objective scientists pursue the evidence wherever it leads, whether that path is pleasurable or unpleasant. Biased scientists produce results that typically don't get past peer-review and are quickly made the laughing stocks of the scientific community. Dishonest people follow only those paths that support their pre-conceived beliefs, honest people are willing to examine their beliefs, revise them when they are shown to be wrong, and follow an intellectual path regardless of whether or not they wish it to be true.

If God created matter, then science is a study of God's creation. It would appear that the IMPLICATION of science is that you show God enough respect to gain a deeper understanding of His creation.