Science

[QuestioningMind]

Many of the anecdotes coming from OBEs in NDEs have been verified. That is what I have been saying all this time. I don't know why people want to say that verified stories have not been verified.

Not verified in a controlled setting, which is what the scientific method requires.

 

[Brian2]

That is in fact an area for the natural sciences to investigate, and it is not a theological question about the nature of God. A theological question would be along the lines of the nature of God, or how does one interpret the Genesis story with the facts that sciences reveals. Science doesn't tell you how you should interpret Genesis. If what science reveals contractics how you interpret Genesis, then it's up to you to try to re-examine how you interpret the texts. The facts are the facts. How we read the Bible, is a matter of interpretation, and science doesn't tell us how to do that.

My interpretation of Genesis has changed over the years. I don't think that we should see all of scientific evolution as the facts however. Why do you think that everything that science tells us is fact.

That is in fact what science assumes. To assume otherwise, would in fact be going beyond doing science and delving into theology. The fact it doesn't do that, means it's doing its job correctly, and should be applauded for that.

The general public hears the stories from popular science that claim to debunk what the Bible tells us. Science might be doing it's job but the interpretation of the naturalistic methodology findings by people who see truth only in the empirical, leads people to say God is not there because science tells us so etc. and can lead the scientifically illiterate to think that God has been disproven.

Are you suggesting we should change science to include the theological, and that religion dictate what is acceptable science or not? It's only good science if it agrees with how you read and interpret scripture?

My attack is not really on science but on those who use science deceitfully. But of course it is probably not that they think they are using it deceitfully, it is that they have also been deceived.
So no I don't think that priest should be telling science what to conclude.

 

[Brian2]

@Brian2 is the argument you're proposing Cartesian Dualism?

I'm more of the mindset of Relativism, personally.

I see the brain as like a computer, so it can think, but it is not conscious in itself. Consciousness is the job of the soul and no doubt decision making.
I thin that probably agrees with Cartesian Dualism.

 

[Brian2]

Science cannot use subjective claims that cannot be demonstrated. How do you tell a person that has had an actual supernatural experience from one that is making it up or from one suffering from mental health problems that manifest in the delusions of a supernatural event? I can't do it. How can we expect science to do it?

In OBEs in NDEs we can tell by the verified information in the stories that the people have told us. I can do it, so science surely can.

 

[Brian2]

I don't know of any verified observations of OBEs. How would one verify that? How is it shown to be supernatural?

The verified stories that have come out of OBEs in NDEs verify the experience. That some of them give information of events that happened in another room etc show that the experience can really be Out of Body. Whether that is called supernatural or not is up to science. It might be that science wants to work on it for the next 100 years to figure out a way that it could happen that make it a brain phenomenon.

 

[Brian2]

Both the heart and the gut have their own nervous systems and a corresponding degree of autonomy. Subsystems all around the body are in play all the time, the pancreas producing eg insulin, the liver processing the blood with bile, albumin, &c and monitoring blood clotting and more. The very fast instinctive reaction to take your hand off the hot stove bypasses conscious consideration and is dealt with by, in evolutionary terms, the "oldest" part of the brain, the "shark's brain" at the top of the spine. And so on.

It is interesting that we are made in the image of God in that way. Our body and mind and spirit work together like the trinity.

 

[Brian2]

It's a different mind set I suspect.

Anything that affects the material universe, that affect can be measured. Anything which exists and can affect the material is natural.

Anything which has no affect on the material universe can't be measured. The supernatural is presumed to have some affect on the universe but that affect can't be measured.
If "something" has a measurable affect on the universe then it is not supernatural.

The supernatural cannot have a measurable affect on the universe. If it could, it would not be supernatural.

Since the supernatural cannot affect the material universe, which includes us. It's existence is irrelevant to us.

Non material ideas have an effect on us and our behaviour and so on the universe. Whether that is measurable is another thing.

 

[Brian2]

Not verified in a controlled setting, which is what the scientific method requires.

There was a film once about a scientist who was offering money for people to participate in scientific research, but they did not know that when the stepped into the glass tank it was going to be filled with water to drown them. Then he would revive them and ask about their experiences.
I guess scientists could find controlled ways to study this phenomenon, but we don't need to wait for that in order to look at the data and make a conclusion.

 

[firedragon]

It is interesting that we are made in the image of God in that way. Our body and mind and spirit work together like the trinity.

Does God have a body?

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems that science has created for itself is the overuse of statistical modeling. This approach to science, allows science to cheat compared to rational modeling, since the former allows fudge factors. If someone found an exception to a rational model; even one data point out of place, the model would need to be revised. If space-time did not change with mass everywhere on earth, General Relativity would be subject to revision.

With statistical modeling none of the data points have to touch the curve, since the curve was formed by averaging experimental data and then using fudge factors. This is a watered down standard. The rational approach has to first build a logical conceptual framework, then create the math, and then prove it with experiments, with the data all needing to touch the curve; Newtonian Gravity.

This higher standard would kill most statistical based theory, such as evolution. However, the watered down standard allows even half baked theory too linger and not be forced to revise, since the fudge can used as a defense for the bad fit.

One of the worse application of this watered standard is risk analysis. According to this second tier science approach, we had the risk of getting COVID. After several years, the data shows that not all people caught the virus. They never had any risk. That was all based on fortune telling and not science. Why does this theory still if it got so many bad data points out of place? Risk is based on the emotion of fear. Emotions are not useful for rational thinking, but it can allow one to use emotions to fill in the curve for you. To appease the fear you will need to accept the theory thereby preventing the trash can where it belongs.

Say a mother tells her son to clean his room. She come back several hours later and the room is still a mess. She is mad and asks him, why didn't you clean your room? Her son says, yesterday I was talking to Joe and he said he may be able to borrow his dad's car and drive the gang to the beach. The odds looks very good to me, so I was preparing for the breach, since Joe does not like to wait. The mother looks at him and says, well how can I argue with science and statistics. Bull crap is able to grow legs.

Casino science needs to come with a disclaimer that it is useful for emotional thinkers; risk and jackpots, but is a watered down standard and that any broad based conclusions that result need to be taken with a grain of salt. It is a stepping stone approach that is useful until someone can use the more advanced rational science approach and get a solid correlation that does not need fudge.

 

[Brian2]

Does God have a body?

In the analogy I would see our spirit as the Father that gives life to the body and brain.
The mind provides the wisdom and would be akin to the Word, the Son.
Our body would be akin to the Spirit of God who is the outreach of God everywhere.
No analogy is perfect of course.
I sometimes wonder if God meant this or some form of this to be what was meant in Genesis.
We are made in the image of God in other ways also of course.

 

[firedragon]

In the analogy I would see our spirit as the Father that gives life to the body and brain.
The mind provides the wisdom and would be akin to the Word, the Son.

But that's one being. Are you saying the trinity is one being?

 

[Brian2]

But that's one being. Are you saying the trinity is one being?

Of course the trinity is one being. God. The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. The Spirit is in the Father and Son. The Son is in the Father and Spirit.
Jesus said that He and His Father are one,,,,,,,one thing.
In the Bible the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God.
The Spirit is called "the Lord".

 

[firedragon]

Of course the trinity is one being. God.

Is that your own theology or is it official trinity according to athanasian creed? Or do you have another creed?

 

[firedragon]

Jesus said that He and His Father are one,,,,,,,one thing.

1. Where did he say he, the Holy Spirit, and the father all one?
2. Why did he call the disciples also one with him?

 

[Brian2]

Is that your own theology or is it official trinity according to athanasian creed? Or do you have another creed?

Official trinity is one one God in 3 persons, or 3 persons in one God.

 

[Brian2]

1. Where did he say he, the Holy Spirit, and the father all one?
2. Why did he call the disciples also one with him?

I don't know where He said that He, the Holy Spirit and the Father are all one. That is worked out by what is said in other places.

I think Jesus said that the disciples are one in Him. The disciples are united as the body of Christ, united together with the one Spirit, the Lord who lives in each one.

 

[firedragon]

Official trinity is one one God in 3 persons, or 3 persons in one God.

Anyway you were portraying "One person" with body, spirit and something else I cant remember. So that's one person, not three persons. The trinity is three persons, one oosia. Not one person like you had illustrated with your analogy.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know where He said that

Thats because not a single verse in the Bible says that.

I think Jesus said that the disciples are one in Him.

Not only. Also in God.

That is why Brian we must read the whole book, not just the verses which are famous.

 

[syo]

Definition: The intellectual

Science??? What intellectual???