Paul Dirac's quote on religion...

[Me Myself]

I understand what lead him to believe that way and I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[atanu]

No, because you are comparing things which are not the same. The coherent whole "object" can have individual components swapped out of it without the object itself disappearing. What happens to a LEGO house when it is disassembled, and all the bricks built into a rocket ship?

The 'Whole' that is made of pre-existing components is not the 'Whole' that we talk about. In such a 'Whole' where components pre-exist there is no cause, which is obviously external or distinct from the conglomeratic Whole.

 

[religion99]

Where is the evidence of reincarnation?

Define the word "Evidence".

 

[Riverwolf]

Metabolism is synonymous with re-incarnation in this lifetime. The body is constantly transforming, no piece of matter within it remains the same.

Given that this process occurs from the moment of conception until death isn't it more logical to assume it will occur at death as well?

No. Death is about the cessation of bodily functions; i.e., the transformation stops.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm sure some have you have come across this reasonably famous quote before from Paul Dirac, which was from a conversation with Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenburg, at the 1927 Solvay Conference.

The quote goes like this:

'I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.'

I was wondering what the more religious inclined on here think of this statement?

All comments welcome.

I understand his frustration... but asserting that believers are essentially "deluded sheeple" is not only arrogant but unworthy.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have read that Pauli was in the room and his response was something like: "Well I think our friend here has got a religion, and its guiding principle is 'there is no god and Paul Dirac is his prophet'."

 

[gnostic]

Just because Abraham Religions and Science agree on something doesn't automatically make it a FACT.

I DON'T THINK Abrahamic religions and science agree on something.

And only science deal with fact, because it deal with evidences.

Then , how will you explain countless instances of reincarnations?

What instances are those?

 

[gnostic]

Then who actually exists as you?

Actually I am every doubtful that is such thing as a soul.

And what I was referring to about Ben Masada's claim (about the soul) in his thread, is that it make much more sense than the Christian and Islamic teachings of the soul being judged and then sent to heaven or hell, or being rewarded or punished respectively. It just make sense to me, not that I believe in it.


As to what exist in me or as me, I would have to agree with PolyHedral: my memory and my personality.

I don't think there are any soul or spirit residing in me.

 

[atanu]

Actually I am every doubtful that is such as a soul.

As to what exist in me or as me, I would have to agree with PolyHedral: my memory and my personality.

I don't think there are any soul or spirit residing in me.

If you took time to inspect your own sentences..............

 

[painted wolf]

Except that memory and personality are dependent on biology not independent from it.

So no independent/eternal soul or spirit required.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

Except that memory and personality are dependent on biology not independent from it.
So no independent/eternal soul or spirit required.
wa:do

How do you know that? Is your learning independent of your given power of awareness?

 

[painted wolf]

How do you know that? Is your learning independent of your given power of awareness?

I know that because Demoic acid poisoning stops you from forming new memories by irreversibly binding to receptors in your brain cells. And that traumatic brain injuries can completely change your personality. As can brain tumors and certain drugs.

If your soul/spirit was your memories and/or your personality, then a knock on the head or eating a bad oyster shouldn't change them.

wa:do

 

[atanu]

I know that because Demoic acid poisoning stops you from forming new memories by irreversibly binding to receptors in your brain cells.
wa:do

Yes. A light bulb can be smashed. My point is supported by your example. The light bulb is not the reality. It is an instrument to use the power of electricity, which is real in this case.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes. A light bulb can be smashed. My point is supported by your example. The light bulb is not the reality. It is an instrument to use the power of electricity, which is real in this case.

But the only meaurable difference between a lit bulb and an unlit bulb is the current flowing through it. This is not the case with the brain.

 

[atanu]

But the only meaurable difference between a lit bulb and an unlit bulb is the current flowing through it. This is not the case with the brain.

Since aware subject is not an object of mind. You can verify it yourself, if you were earnest.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes. A light bulb can be smashed. My point is supported by your example. The light bulb is not the reality. It is an instrument to use the power of electricity, which is real in this case.

Yes, but unlike memory and personality... electricity exists and be demonstrated outside the light bulb.
Memory and personality do not exist outside of the brain.
Which is why they are so susceptible to change and are not stable.

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

Memory and personality do not exist outside of the brain.

Memory certainly does, but in all cases, it's encoded in some physical medium.

 

[atanu]

Yes, but unlike memory and personality... electricity exists and be demonstrated outside the light bulb.
Memory and personality do not exist outside of the brain.
Which is why they are so susceptible to change and are not stable.

wa:do

Light is also not visible in electricity.

 

[PolyHedral]

Light is also not visible in electricity.

...Yes it is. Go study electromagnetics.

 

[painted wolf]

Light is also not visible in electricity.

That is because light in the light bulb isn't from the electricity...

The electricity in a light bulb isn't producing the light... it's the heating of the tungsten in the filament giving off photons.

wa:do