100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Conservationist on May 01, 2010, 10:05:51 PM

Title: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Conservationist on May 01, 2010, 10:05:51 PM
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of God.

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of God.

God is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand God.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 01, 2010, 10:16:49 PM
Your notion of God is interchangeable with pixie dust; why have an unneeded entity to fill an unneeded role?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 01, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
It is needed because it represents the unexplainable, which is an entity in its own way. However I don't think rigorous philosophy has a place in religion. The more you try to understand God it the further away you get. That is why we have turned away from religion the more we have understood science and tried to apply it to religion. Science requires understanding, God requires pure and simple faith.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 01, 2010, 11:25:48 PM
Again, pixie dust. Unrealities and unbeings aren't justified by their own non-existence and allowing them to do so permits black boxes and magical entities to enter an argument, reducing everything to absurdity. Worst of all, God isn't even an explanation, just a regression and leads circular arguments.

"Why am I here?"
"God wanted me here"
"Why did God want me here?"
"Because I'm here"

"Where did I come from?"
"God"
"Where did God come from"
"Supergod"
"Where did Supergod come from?"
etc
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 01, 2010, 11:33:58 PM
Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 02, 2010, 12:02:44 AM
Again, pixie dust. Unrealities and unbeings aren't justified by their own non-existence and allowing them to do so permits black boxes and magical entities to enter an argument, reducing everything to absurdity. Worst of all, God isn't even an explanation, just a regression and leads circular arguments.

"Why am I here?"
"God wanted me here"
"Why did God want me here?"
"Because I'm here"

"Where did I come from?"
"God"
"Where did God come from"
"Supergod"
"Where did Supergod come from?"
etc

This is philosophy and science, not religion.

Why are we here - realm of science
What should we do once we are here and why - realm of religion

Of course, you can explain the second one philosophically or by practical reason, but this is looking upon ourselves as an observer rather than simply being ourselves and having faith. I've found the latter to be superior.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Ildjicide on May 02, 2010, 02:05:28 AM
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of God.

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of God.

God is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand God.

This shadows my take on science, religion and philosophy - they are in essence the same thing. I also like this concept of God - the ultimate reality, the most basic form of understanding, the overarching consciousness that functions through a logic that science is trying to assimilate. Being a subset of God, one can never understand God completely.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 02, 2010, 02:41:18 AM
Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

Language is an entity, and as such so is scientific terminology. Language, civilization, and ethics are not required for survival, and the justification process of these things as necessary is something I think is exemplary of modern, reductionist thinking. God is a celebratory entity, much like music. Music conveys an experience, it isn't necessary. Thus, music that teaches a lesson directly or is a personal accessory becomes functional and boring. The best music, and spirituality, is just a form of unnecessary appreciation for the mechanics of life, and our unnecessary study and harnessing of these mechanics to create our unnecessary empires.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Eleison on May 02, 2010, 02:55:47 AM
Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

Language is an entity, and as such so is scientific terminology. Language, civilization, and ethics are not required for survival, and the justification process of these things as necessary is something I think is exemplary of modern, reductionist thinking. God is a celebratory entity, much like music. Music conveys an experience, it isn't necessary. Thus, music that teaches a lesson directly or is a personal accessory becomes functional and boring. The best music, and spirituality, is just a form of unnecessary appreciation for the mechanics of life, and our unnecessary study and harnessing of these mechanics to create our unnecessary empires.

pwned...

sorry, couldn't help myself
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 02, 2010, 06:22:37 AM
Rampant atheism is ridiculous.  Reaching towards that which is greater than the individual ("Tribe", "Nature", "God") is fulfilling.

Reality itself fulfills all requirements of Godhood - it is all-pervasive, all-knowing, all-powerful, the Creator and Destroyer of all things, and the designer and deliverer of the patterns and paths of existence.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Arctic Sun on May 02, 2010, 06:33:27 AM
Most Atheists I've met simply do not get modern the point of religion and/or faith, even as it pertains to themselves.

I'm  not a religious guy, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the correlation between social cohesiveness and religion, as faith is not unlike rounding up food or building a fire.  I mentioned this to a professor-in-training friend, and his immediate response was the USSR's lack of advancement, as if that was completely a result of faith.

I wonder how Newton managed.  Or what about Riemann?

In this case, I think the interpretation - and not the unyielding belief - is what makes the difference with regards to avoiding mass hysteria and the nothingness it provokes.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 02, 2010, 06:42:22 AM
Smart people should learn what they can from everything that they experience, and this includes religion.  Morans should follow smart people, which tends to lead them into following the same rites and rituals.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 07:13:55 AM
Rampant atheism is ridiculous.  Reaching towards that which is greater than the individual ("Tribe", "Nature", "God") is fulfilling.

Reality itself fulfills all requirements of Godhood - it is all-pervasive, all-knowing, all-powerful, the Creator and Destroyer of all things, and the designer and deliverer of the patterns and paths of existence.
No it's not. There's no reason why you would ever need to be a slave to anyone other than yourself. These same ideas are the similar to those espoused by the Nazis which coerced millions of idiotic sheep into committing the holocaust, going to war and dying pointlessly for imperial gains. The whole idea of owing anyone anything from birth, I suspect, is rooted in the concept of original sin. You owe no one anything, ever. You came into this world completely guiltless and the only obligation you will ever have is to yourself.

I'm  not a religious guy, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the correlation between social cohesiveness and religion, as faith is not unlike rounding up food or building a fire.  I mentioned this to a professor-in-training friend, and his immediate response was the USSR's lack of advancement, as if that was completely a result of faith.
Similarly, there's a correlation between social cohesiveness and war, should we go around committing wars as to bind together as a community? (At least, this was true of the first and second world war). Besides, cultural and social cohesiveness implies nothing more than group think and conformity. Religion very easily does that because you shift the focus of metaphysical inquiry away from the individual towards oligarchies and the hegemony of society.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 07:22:35 AM
Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

Language is an entity, and as such so is scientific terminology. Language, civilization, and ethics are not required for survival, and the justification process of these things as necessary is something I think is exemplary of modern, reductionist thinking. God is a celebratory entity, much like music. Music conveys an experience, it isn't necessary. Thus, music that teaches a lesson directly or is a personal accessory becomes functional and boring. The best music, and spirituality, is just a form of unnecessary appreciation for the mechanics of life, and our unnecessary study and harnessing of these mechanics to create our unnecessary empires.
God is still an unnecessary entity.

Music is an organic reflection of metaphysical experience based on a physical universe. God is a magical entity based on fairy tale thinking and cultural traditions. Music has a function as enjoyment and communication, God on the other hand robs people of important life experience in trade for ontological security.

To quote Freud: "Religion is mass neurosis".
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 02, 2010, 07:57:53 AM
Music is an organic reflection of metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

Tick.

Quote
God is a magical entity based on fairy tale thinking and cultural traditions.

Which in turn is based on metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

And it goes beyond enjoyment and communication to bind communities and inspire individuals.

Why on earth would you quote Freud of all atheists?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 02, 2010, 08:05:57 AM
Quote from: Conservationist
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of God.

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of God.

God is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand God.
Quote from: Ildjicide
I also like this concept of God - the ultimate reality, the most basic form of understanding
If you are defining God as ultimate reality, then I agree with what Conservationist has said.  But why use a loaded term like God?  Why not just use the word reality?  It seems you're inviting a dualistic perversion by redefining an old concept in an attempt towards unity.

Quote from: esoteric
The more you try to understand God it the further away you get.
The Chimerical God.  Sounds like bullshit to me.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: antithetikal on May 02, 2010, 08:13:01 AM
Maybe the idea of god or entity should be separated from religion, since religion is created by humans to convey ideas that aren't fully understood. Long ago, religion could explain the why's, but that's no longer true.
I consider the term of god as a "glue" that maintains everything in its place in an intelligent way. The watchmaker analogy makes a lot of sense to me.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 08:18:36 AM
Which in turn is based on metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

And it goes beyond enjoyment and communication to bind communities and inspire individuals.

Why on earth would you quote Freud of all atheists?
When have you ever experienced God?

I'm not trying to make a point as an atheist, hell, I'm not even an atheist. But do you really think that a concept of God is anything more than a cop out because an individual can't suffer their own anxieties about their own lack of direction and purpose in the Universe?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 02, 2010, 09:13:01 AM
Rampant atheism is ridiculous.  Reaching towards that which is greater than the individual ("Tribe", "Nature", "God") is fulfilling.

Reality itself fulfills all requirements of Godhood - it is all-pervasive, all-knowing, all-powerful, the Creator and Destroyer of all things, and the designer and deliverer of the patterns and paths of existence.
No it's not. There's no reason why you would ever need to be a slave to anyone other than yourself. These same ideas are the similar to those espoused by the Nazis which coerced millions of idiotic sheep into committing the holocaust, going to war and dying pointlessly for imperial gains. The whole idea of owing anyone anything from birth, I suspect, is rooted in the concept of original sin. You owe no one anything, ever. You came into this world completely guiltless and the only obligation you will ever have is to yourself.

I'm not a Judeo-Christian, thus your arguments are invalid.  Truly, the statements that you've made in that post there are evidence to support the theory that the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are entirely ignorant on the subject of religion.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Dead_Soul on May 02, 2010, 01:16:35 PM
Which in turn is based on metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

And it goes beyond enjoyment and communication to bind communities and inspire individuals.

Why on earth would you quote Freud of all atheists?
When have you ever experienced God?

I'm not trying to make a point as an atheist, hell, I'm not even an atheist. But do you really think that a concept of God is anything more than a cop out because an individual can't suffer their own anxieties about their own lack of direction and purpose in the Universe?
You seem to have confused what we at ANUS refer to as "God" with what William Blake hilariously referred to as the "Nobodaddy". I think I can help to quill your perplexity.

The traditional Judeo-Christian conception of "God" is anthropomorphic and completely transcendent, while the Anusian version is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, and is totally indifferent to the actions of human beings. Jehovah, on the other hand, created the universe as a sort of container for human beings, and supervises his progeny twenty four seven, much as Big Brother does.

For an introduction to the Anusian formulation of divinity, check out the Upanishads and any of William Blake's works.
 
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Conservationist on May 02, 2010, 01:38:21 PM
The traditional Judeo-Christian conception of "God" is anthropomorphic and completely transcendent, while the Anusian version is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, and is totally indifferent to the actions of human beings.

"Holy fuck! Who is this guy? He gets it."

ANUSian "God" is conflatable to Blake's "godhead," also referenced in the Bhagavad-Gita. God is the animating force underlying all reality.

The Judeo-Christian God as seen in most public propaganda is a dualistic God; the only other gods we see are material, including atheism and some Judaic sects.

The ANUSian "God" is a transcendental idealist creation, an emergent pattern which has no existence yet exists in everything.

N.B.: bong hits recommended with this post so you can find God in your toe.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 02, 2010, 01:57:07 PM
Quote from: Conservationist
God is the animating force underlying all reality.

The ANUSian "God" is a transcendental idealist creation, an emergent pattern which has no existence yet exists in everything.
You seem to be using two distinct notions of God.  One is that God is ultimate reality, and the other that God is merely a motivational concept, "existing" only within people's minds.  Are you implying that ultimate reality is purely conceptual, or am I missing something?

Edit:  Never mind, you're simply promoting a panentheistic view.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 02:53:40 PM
I also am confused. How can this so called "God" be a notion of causality and dictator of actions in the Universe while at the same time encourages free will towards a self defined ideal. Does this supposedly neutral pattern of existence have some grandiose plan in store especially for you?'

Edit: Perhaps I am confusing Cargests definition with Conservationists. This is why I argued earlier that "The Universe" is interchangeable with "God", the Universe lacks all the unnecessary connotations while being founded on an organic worldview.

My underlying problem still remains this: Why do we need this extra conceptual entity? Does it satisfy some neurotic fear of unknowing or a subconscious desire for slavery?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Libido_Itch on May 02, 2010, 05:17:12 PM
I tried reading this but I can't follow along because of my stupidity.  You are all very intelligent.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 05:42:19 PM
I tried reading this but I can't follow along because of my stupidity.  You are all very intelligent.
There's not all that much to the thread other than a failure to apply Occam's razor: Instead of going for the simplest explanation, we've added a God to the equation to explain the essence of the Universe. Similarly, I'm going to propose that pixie dust gives my toaster the motivation to pop, lunar beams cause my food to heat in the microwave and 8 feet long invisible tarantulas caused my parents to fornicate.

The proposition that "We will never understand God" is based on delusional ideas of dualism and a magical ability to foresee into a potentially infinite future.

Pantheism is nothing but post-Christianity spirituality for hipsters and neurotics.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 02, 2010, 06:05:33 PM
There's no need to go that far just to disprove the personal God.

The Universe, Everything, All, are not synonyms of God. The divine Absolute is not conformed by a sum of parts, but it is Atman, and not an accumulation of events within Maya.

That's the concept of God for Eckhartian and Sufi transcendentalists, we take advantage of the rhetoric within these traditions. That's all.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: druidakoda on May 02, 2010, 06:27:53 PM
God will never be proved/disproved scientifically, because surely you'd have to be transcendent to do so;  I think this plays to Godel's incompleteness theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems), or just a simple Catch 22. Somethings have an intrinsic value to the soul which I can't see being measured scientifically; you can measure the activity and the particles in the brain, but you can't measure the thoughts and the feelings that cause them or are caused by them.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: istaros on May 02, 2010, 07:12:27 PM
My underlying problem still remains this: Why do we need this extra conceptual entity? Does it satisfy some neurotic fear of unknowing or a subconscious desire for slavery?
I don't know why it's necessary, but it's fairly obvious that it is. Same goes for sleeping.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 02, 2010, 07:16:25 PM
God will never be proved/disproved scientifically, because surely you'd have to be transcendent to do so.

Which is why this dispute will never be resolved. I'm glad Blake was brought up, as it seems he came as close as you can get to transcendence: "If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, 'till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern."
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: AnHero on May 02, 2010, 07:19:22 PM
We had a 14 page thread last summer (Religion in Modern America (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,6636.0.html)) were all your concerns are addressed. Most of it consisted of a couple people pointing out that an institution resembling religion is important because it motivates people and another couple repeatedly telling stories like yours above thinking they were performing a reduction to absurdity when really they just didn't understand the topic of conversation.

(cue: "No I do understand and it's bullshit I tell you!!! Bullshit!!!")
....groan.

They made the exact same arguments so you're not setting anyone straight, just so you know. If you mention burden of proof or positivism I'm gonna snap.

...Similarly, I'm going to propose that pixie dust gives my toaster the motivation to pop, lunar beams cause my food to heat in the microwave and 8 feet long invisible tarantulas caused my parents to fornicate.

See, this story is useless not because it's not true but because it doesn't help anyone understand anything. You made it up to sound implausible and stupid not to motivate good behavior as deemed by a cultural standard.

There are different strata of humanity and each one needs to have the world explained to them in a different way. The truly enlightened, who do not actually exist, would not need symbols or allegories to help them understand the world, they need no God Concept. On the other end, there are the dumbest and/or least philoposhical who need rules like "Thou shalt not lie" explained to them by saying "You'll go to hell if you lie."

Second, why apply a literal criticism to a metaphorical story? Do you do that every time you read fiction? Do you think Tolkien is stupid because there is no such thing as magic or dragons in reality? Then why do it to the bible?

To anticipate a question: Why are people told the bible contains literal truth? because that's how you get them to heed the wisdom contained in it.

Thirdly...

These same ideas are the similar to those espoused by the Nazis which coerced millions of idiotic sheep into committing the holocaust, going to war and dying pointlessly for imperial gains.

But these ideas did motivate them. They're apparently the only way to motivate the masses. And if they can motivate them for purposes we deem bad, then they can be used for purposes we deem good. What do you want to do, not have a society? The people need direction and it needs to be delivered in a way effective for the audience.

4. Religion as an abstracted concept (that is a group devotion to a set of beliefs) is just part of human nature and if we don't have an cultural institution to fill that need, what will?

5. You tell from the length of this post that the issue is more complicated than just applying Occam's razor to each myth, isolated from context. And that might be where you start to go wrong (I think, anyways) is that you remove the concept of religion from the context of humanity and criticize it from what it is in itself. Can anything we make stand up to that?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Dead_Soul on May 02, 2010, 07:25:19 PM
I also am confused. How can this so called "God" be a notion of causality and dictator of actions in the Universe while at the same time encourages free will towards a self defined ideal. Does this supposedly neutral pattern of existence have some grandiose plan in store especially for you?'

Edit: Perhaps I am confusing Cargests definition with Conservationists. This is why I argued earlier that "The Universe" is interchangeable with "God", the Universe lacks all the unnecessary connotations while being founded on an organic worldview.

My underlying problem still remains this: Why do we need this extra conceptual entity? Does it satisfy some neurotic fear of unknowing or a subconscious desire for slavery?
I'm sorry to answer your question with a question, but this has been bothering me. Your statements seem to be couched within Freudian terminology. Why do you rely on a psychological framework that has long been dismissed as pseudoscience (not to mention its dismemberment at the hands of Wittgenstein)?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 02, 2010, 08:04:35 PM
Speaking my mind, I would say that Stars is being purposefully immature.  In fact, I sincerely hope that this is the case.  His insistence that we should not even consider "God", and the narrowminded view of what "God" might be which causes this insistence, is frought with the basic confusions of most popular modern "religions" (i.e. the bullshit and watered down versions of Judeo-Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism).

God is often created in our image, not we in "His" image.  It is far easier for we, as humans, to understand a process or fact if we can relate it to an aspect of our own being.  The problem arises when we start to believe that our relating God to ourselves means that God is actually like ourselves, thus taking allegory and metaphor as being Truth, when, clearly, they were never intended to be such.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 02, 2010, 08:32:17 PM
Quote from: istaros
I don't know why it's necessary, but it's fairly obvious that it is. Same goes for sleeping.
Bad analogy and logic.

Quote from: An Hero
We had a 14 page thread last summer (Religion in Modern America) were all your concerns are addressed
That thread turned into a major clusterfuck, and I don't think it really answers all of the concerns.

Quote
There are different strata of humanity and each one needs to have the world explained to them in a different way. The truly enlightened, who do not actually exist, would not need symbols or allegories to help them understand the world, they need no God Concept. On the other end, there are the dumbest and/or least philoposhical who need rules like "Thou shalt not lie" explained to them by saying "You'll go to hell if you lie."
I'll grant you that very stupid people need a concept like God to keep their asses in line, but why would an intelligent person need any concept of God, no matter how sophisticated or abstract you make it.  It just seems unnecessary and disingenuous.

Quote
4. Religion as an abstracted concept (that is a group devotion to a set of beliefs) is just part of human nature and if we don't have an cultural institution to fill that need, what will?
Good question.  I don't know that I have an answer to that question, but as far as I can tell every modern religious institution is full of con-artists.  (Yes, even the Hindus.)

Quote from: cargest
Speaking my mind, I would say that Stars is being purposefully immature.
I wouldn't say immature.  He's attempting to show the absurdity of claims being made by applying similar logic to ridiculous scenarios.  This is the same tactic RedReign was using in the older thread.  It's a common tactic that atheists use, but I don't find it to be particularly effective.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: istaros on May 02, 2010, 08:50:00 PM
Not bad logic - no logic. It's necessary because it has never not existed. I see now that "necessary" is a loaded term - "unavoidable" is better, although that subtly implies a dissatisfaction with the fact it's unavoidable. Religion is a consequence of human existence, and the common atheist's humanistic tendencies are no less irrational than a belief in pixie dust - their own views are guilty of the same fallacies which they levy against religions.

In essence, atheists are religious themselves(which is not the same as "atheism is a religion"), although the masses are too blind to understand that you don't need a formalized god-figure for a belief system to be based in myth. You can always cite the exceptions, atheists who are also nihilistic - but you could do the same for non-atheists, so it's a moot point.

Symbols outweighs facts in terms of motivating humans. This can be used for feats of wonder or for debasement.  As an example of the former, see the pyramids at Giza, where the symbolism of gods and spirituality has left eternal monuments. For the latter, see modern Western culture, where intoxication on symbols has led to an inability to see the aspects of the world beyond those which our social symbols use as focal points of attention(e.g. caring about Haiti, not bombing Iran). Religion isn't an issue in today's world, although weakness very much is.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 11:08:30 PM
See, this story is useless not because it's not true but because it doesn't help anyone understand anything. You made it up to sound implausible and stupid not to motivate good behavior as deemed by a cultural standard.
When did science and philosophy devolve into the art of sheep herding? More over, why should an intelligent person feel compelled to be either shepherd or sheep.

There are different strata of humanity and each one needs to have the world explained to them in a different way. The truly enlightened, who do not actually exist, would not need symbols or allegories to help them understand the world, they need no God Concept. On the other end, there are the dumbest and/or least philoposhical who need rules like "Thou shalt not lie" explained to them by saying "You'll go to hell if you lie."
Again, what relevance does this have to us? I am under the impression that most people here are of reasonable intellect and philosophically inclined.

Quote
Second, why apply a literal criticism to a metaphorical story? Do you do that every time you read fiction? Do you think Tolkien is stupid because there is no such thing as magic or dragons in reality? Then why do it to the bible?
I don't know how the Bible came up, since this has nothing to do with Conservationists brand of philosophy. However, LOTR doesn't posit itself as true or applicable to the real world.

Quote
These same ideas are the similar to those espoused by the Nazis which coerced millions of idiotic sheep into committing the holocaust, going to war and dying pointlessly for imperial gains.

But these ideas did motivate them. They're apparently the only way to motivate the masses. And if they can motivate them for purposes we deem bad, then they can be used for purposes we deem good. What do you want to do, not have a society? The people need direction and it needs to be delivered in a way effective for the audience.
Again, art of sheep herding, not philosophy. You could similarly argue that psychiatry is necessary because it keeps people in check, laws are necessary because we wouldn't function without them, jails are necessary because without them deviance would destroy society. These are subjects of sociological inquiry, not philosophy.

Quote
4. Religion as an abstracted concept (that is a group devotion to a set of beliefs) is just part of human nature and if we don't have an cultural institution to fill that need, what will?
Human nature is a load of nonsense. There's no nature of anything, if I completely reject religious beliefs and molest children, is it against nature or a part of my nature? At best, you could generalise as I have previously that religion is a symptom of mass neurosis.

Quote
5. You tell from the length of this post that the issue is more complicated than just applying Occam's razor to each myth, isolated from context. And that might be where you start to go wrong (I think, anyways) is that you remove the concept of religion from the context of humanity and criticize it from what it is in itself. Can anything we make stand up to that?
Find me a gene which makes someone inherently religious, otherwise again, it's pure nonsense. Religion is better understood as a cultural phenomenon, not a biological one. Religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern society, are we going against the grain or is it our nature to move from primitive theories of the world to scientific ones?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 11:15:45 PM
I also am confused. How can this so called "God" be a notion of causality and dictator of actions in the Universe while at the same time encourages free will towards a self defined ideal. Does this supposedly neutral pattern of existence have some grandiose plan in store especially for you?'

Edit: Perhaps I am confusing Cargests definition with Conservationists. This is why I argued earlier that "The Universe" is interchangeable with "God", the Universe lacks all the unnecessary connotations while being founded on an organic worldview.

My underlying problem still remains this: Why do we need this extra conceptual entity? Does it satisfy some neurotic fear of unknowing or a subconscious desire for slavery?
I'm sorry to answer your question with a question, but this has been bothering me. Your statements seem to be couched within Freudian terminology. Why do you rely on a psychological framework that has long been dismissed as pseudoscience (not to mention its dismemberment at the hands of Wittgenstein)?
Neurosis (my only use of Freudian terminology) is a general term for depression, anxiety, existential issues, etc. I'm not suggesting any scientific theory nor am I offering complex psychological explanations for behaviour (Freud by the way, is only dismissed as pseudoscience because it's unfalsifiable, there maybe truth to it, but unfortunately it can't be tested). My rare use of Freudian terminology is comparable to someone using Nietzschean or Foucauldian terminology. If you think that there may be another reason for people turning to religious ideas besides ontological/existential issues (or laziness), feel free to criticise.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 02, 2010, 11:22:40 PM
Find me a gene which makes someone inherently religious

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-contribute-to-religious-inclination.html
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 11:23:36 PM
Speaking my mind, I would say that Stars is being purposefully immature.  In fact, I sincerely hope that this is the case.  His insistence that we should not even consider "God", and the narrowminded view of what "God" might be which causes this insistence, is frought with the basic confusions of most popular modern "religions" (i.e. the bullshit and watered down versions of Judeo-Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism).

God is often created in our image, not we in "His" image.  It is far easier for we, as humans, to understand a process or fact if we can relate it to an aspect of our own being.  The problem arises when we start to believe that our relating God to ourselves means that God is actually like ourselves, thus taking allegory and metaphor as being Truth, when, clearly, they were never intended to be such.
There's nothing immature about it (unless you consider concepts of God as immature). Pixie dust has the same function, state and explanatory power as God, except pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe.

Again, lets recontextualise Conservationist's original post.

I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of pixie dust

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of pixie dust.

Pixie dust is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand pixie dust.

Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Both are:
1. Immaterial
2. Have purpose and function
3. Beyond observation
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 11:40:26 PM
Find me a gene which makes someone inherently religious

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-contribute-to-religious-inclination.html
My mistake, I should have written "everyone inherently religious". However, that article still emphasises the importance of cultural traditions in religiousity. If religion did not exist, would people with those genetic profiles need to invent it? My answer would be no, there's no symbiotic relationship between human existence and religious beliefs.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 02, 2010, 11:40:40 PM
Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.

Yet, the concept of God is enough defined to be compared to diverse cultural concepts as Tao or Brahma. And as I said, they aren't just synonyms of Everything.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 02, 2010, 11:46:34 PM
Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.
What is this difference exactly?

By the way, for those mentioning atheism, I'm not an atheist, being an atheist implies believing in a negation (there is no God), I simply argue an indifference to God concepts, since they are equally as plausible as other absurdities, flying spaghetti monsters, pixie dusts, lunar beams and so on. I'm perfectly functional and content existing in a state of unknowing.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: istaros on May 03, 2010, 12:10:00 AM
Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.
What is this difference exactly?
Reality.

When a continent falls under the spell of pixie dust for several centuries, let us know.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 12:20:33 AM
Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.
What is this difference exactly?
Reality.

When a continent falls under the spell of pixie dust for several centuries, let us know.
To borrow from computer science; Garbage In, Garbage Out.

There's no logical reason to believe there's a difference between nonsense such as God and pixie dust except for resorting to nonsensical arguments like "Well it's been so popular for so long, that gives it legitimacy!"

You started off with a garbage world view and consequently all you're arguing is garbage. If there's any validity to the garbage, it would be a result of random chance.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: istaros on May 03, 2010, 12:26:28 AM
There's no logical reason for anything. This is the way the world is, and it includes random chance(or at least what we can only describe as random chance).
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 03, 2010, 12:47:53 AM
Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.

What is this difference exactly?

God has a social functionality that a magical ninja chicken-hippopotamus doesn't. At a functional level, God is the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crystallization of individual and communal destiny... I'd like examples of pixie dust doing that. Of course, God can derive in bad results, as every high concept does (heroism, love... black metal).

Now, the metaphysical level is even better. As Schuon said: "The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as It transcends them." Does pixie dust serve as concept to contain that which is beyond the multiplicity? Does pixie dust as concept, seek to solve the duality between subject and object?

Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 01:06:22 AM
Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.

What is this difference exactly?

God has a social functionality that a magical ninja chicken-hippopotamus doesn't. At a functional level, God is the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crystallization of individual and communal destiny... I'd like examples of pixie dust doing that. Of course, God can derive in bad results, as every high concept does (heroism, love... black metal).

Now, the metaphysical level is even better. As Schuon said: "The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as It transcends them." Does pixie dust serve as concept to contain that which is beyond the multiplicity? Does pixie dust seeks to solve the duality between subject and object?
Pixie dust could do all of those things if it was the cultural norm (who knows, maybe in some cultures a pixie dust like concept has the same transcendental qualities that God does in Western cultures). Pixie dust could have "the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crysallisation of individual and communal destiny", could "serve as a concept to contain that which is beyond multiplicity" and "solve the duality between subject and object". Hell, invisible tarantulas could be the ones spreading the invisible pixie dust, in conjunction with the invisible goatlord who fires lunar beams from his giant horns. This transcendental, invisible goat of course, is an essence of a further supertranscendental pattern in the transcendental plane, the mighty five eyed snake Colololuu, who in turn is controlled by an infinite regression of supersuper....transcendental patterns/beings/entities. How is this ridiculous account of metaphysics any less likely than God doing everything you said? I've asked this question several times and all I'm getting is "it's a historical artifact".  Moreover, prove my theory is absurd or wrong. You can't, because I hide behind the bulwark of "It's transcendental so you can't experience or understand it!". Alternatively, I can hide behind global skepticism like esoteric "Anything is possible!". I'd rather take the Nietzschean approach and philosophise with the hammer; and all I'm getting are hollow, empty arguments.

Edit: I think this thread title would be more appropriately titled "The split between religion and garbage does not exist".
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Eleison on May 03, 2010, 02:27:58 AM
I find it sad that people have managed to argue over the term God, without even realizing that their argument has nothing to do with the OP.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 02:44:41 AM
What exactly are you expecting to be posted?

"Oh wow Conservationist, your post is such a powerful, simple account of nature and the applicability of science/religion/philosophy. The only other place I could gain such clarity and insight is at my local Scientology church".

Pass, if you're going to live your life with voluntary personal delusions, keep them to yourself. Posting them on a message board is just asking for criticism.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Grim Morrison on May 03, 2010, 02:50:48 AM
I think what set Stars... off was the usage of the term "God". Dead_Soul and Conservationist explained it most succinctly. I get it but still, it is a human conception and for human use with possible flaws. While Dead_Soul and Conservationist are visualizing this in terms of meaning in human life and betterment of same through the best possible methods, I suspect Stars is speaking in more absolute terms. If reality is indeed the higher order Reality envisioned in the ancient Hindu texts, nothing Stars says is going to change that. If it isn't, Dead_Soul and Conservationist can do nothing about it except still pattern their lives around it which may help them fulfill themselves and be their best and influence the world around them for the better.

Maybe it's all down to semantics and we can settle on a word for this apart from "god"...? Not pixie dust, please.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 03:20:11 AM
Even if we were the reduce the term of God to a purely abstract/non-transcendental concept (think Eternal Recurrence), these questions still remain

- Why do I need this concept?
- Under this concept, is my future determined by God?
- Is free will non-existent?
- Is anyone responsible for anything?
- Do I exist as an individual?

Eternal recurrence I see as an empowering exercise of individual free will, God as an underlying essence of reality is both deterministic and prohibitive.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Grim Morrison on May 03, 2010, 03:49:04 AM
I would say, borrowing a little from Hindu teachings:

- Why do I need this concept?
It doesn't matter if you think you need it or you want to need it or you don't want to need it. It simply is.

- Under this concept, is my future determined by God?
That's not easy, I can't give an exact answer. Suffice to say any of the infinite paths you may take based on your actions every moment all fit into the paradigm.

- Is free will non-existent?
No, not how I think you think. It exists in you but you are part of a greater web. Your actions are responses to other actions and will determine some future actions. All is.

- Is anyone responsible for anything?
Yes, everyone is responsible for what they do. But see again question 2.

- Do I exist as an individual?
At a lower order of reality, within your own life, yes. But with the realization of higher order Reality, you won't consider yourself your self.

I'm sorry if I can't put it any better at the moment.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 03, 2010, 05:03:24 AM
If we take Reality as being "God", then yes, your future is determined by God (thank you, B-series time).

Free will of the individual is non-existent (thank you, Nietzsche).

Everyone (or, rather, everything) is responsible for everything (this is "God").

In the end, this is just the other extreme from saying that nothing has meaning/purpose - everything has meaning and purpose, and everything is meaning and purpose.  These two perspectives come to the same point, which we seem to be calling Nihilism.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Eleison on May 03, 2010, 05:20:39 AM
What exactly are you expecting to be posted?

"Oh wow Conservationist, your post is such a powerful, simple account of nature and the applicability of science/religion/philosophy. The only other place I could gain such clarity and insight is at my local Scientology church".

Pass, if you're going to live your life with voluntary personal delusions, keep them to yourself. Posting them on a message board is just asking for criticism.

You completely missed the point of the original post and have since wasted everyones time with triviality and the obvious.  Kindly remove yourself from this thread.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: NHA on May 03, 2010, 05:42:31 AM
i cant beelieve no one has mentined that god is dog spelled backwords.

adn my dog should take orders from me not the other way round Lol amirite.

Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 05:50:54 AM
pwned...

sorry, couldn't help myself
You're right, clever comments like that are much more worthy of our time. I think what is more worrying is the blind devotion that many of the posters here have towards the in-crowd. As soon as Conservationist/Prozak/etc etc post something, people aptly jump on the bandwagon without thinking critically about what is being said. The only lucid responses in this thread thus far have been from myself, jewbob and grim morrison.

Conservationist has made several threads filled with idiotic content, distortions of the truth and personal interpretation of news articles/event to mean more than they actually do (see: recent thread on statistics where he obviously has no clue as to even elementary statistics and then uses it to propagate his disapproval of science). In this thread he made the bold claim that there's a magical force (God) behind the Universe, without stating what the purpose or context of this belief was. As far as I could initially tell, the original post is proposing that it actually exists as a transcendental force, yet it has been painfully clarified by other posters as to the purpose. Similarly, he makes claims that are immune to criticism "We will never understand God" and uses loaded terminology. I would think he is trolling if it wasn't for the consistency of his posts.

It's a horrible contradiction that the ethos of ANUS is against the masses; yet at the same time people here as just as susceptible to the voice of authority and group think. It's like escaping one hell only to enter another. I used to criticise an individual on another board for slavishly copying and pasting anus articles without offering any further analysis or criticism. In the end, it became increasingly evident that the individual had 1. No idea what they were quoting and 2. were unable to provide their own perspective.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: 41|>5 on May 03, 2010, 06:38:38 AM
By the way, for those mentioning atheism, I'm not an atheist, being an atheist implies believing in a negation (there is no God), I simply argue an indifference to God concepts, since they are equally as plausible as other absurdities, flying spaghetti monsters, pixie dusts, lunar beams and so on. I'm perfectly functional and content existing in a state of unknowing.
Same here.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Eleison on May 03, 2010, 07:09:40 AM
In this thread he made the bold claim that there's a magical force (God) behind the Universe

This is exactly my point, if you'd actually bothered to read his later post he clearly explained that this is not what he meant.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 07:30:31 AM
Interesting how you choose to ignore the following sentence, since it completely negates any point you're trying to make. What I find even more interesting is that you're unable to converse yourself, instead relying on the referencing of others. Even still, that later post of his is contradictory and idiotic. An essence which isn't really an essence but is because it's non-existence justifies it's existence exists and is the cause of all action in the Universe while at the same time is the cause of nothing and is merely a transcendental ideal even though we're rejecting dualism...What? This almost makes my pixie dust theory seem plausible...

The notion of an ANUSian God is laughable too, we've thrown out our slavery towards a Judeo-Christian God only to be reined in by one developed by the Cult figures on ANUS. Let me take your ideals and adopt them as my own, because I am surely lost without you Prozak!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Somnambulist on May 03, 2010, 07:35:08 AM
Give me an honest answer as to what differentiates pixie dust (or lunar beams and invisible tarantulas) from God.

Pixie dust hasn't been the cultural norm for understanding the Universe, neither invisible tarantulas. Why? Because they don't have the same purpose and function. God has an unique function which is not the same of a flying spaghetti monster or whatever reductio ad absurdum specification you will.

What is this difference exactly?

God has a social functionality that a magical ninja chicken-hippopotamus doesn't. At a functional level, God is the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crystallization of individual and communal destiny... I'd like examples of pixie dust doing that. Of course, God can derive in bad results, as every high concept does (heroism, love... black metal).

Now, the metaphysical level is even better. As Schuon said: "The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as It transcends them." Does pixie dust serve as concept to contain that which is beyond the multiplicity? Does pixie dust seeks to solve the duality between subject and object?
Pixie dust could do all of those things if it was the cultural norm (who knows, maybe in some cultures a pixie dust like concept has the same transcendental qualities that God does in Western cultures). Pixie dust could have "the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crysallisation of individual and communal destiny", could "serve as a concept to contain that which is beyond multiplicity" and "solve the duality between subject and object". Hell, invisible tarantulas could be the ones spreading the invisible pixie dust, in conjunction with the invisible goatlord who fires lunar beams from his giant horns. This transcendental, invisible goat of course, is an essence of a further supertranscendental pattern in the transcendental plane, the mighty five eyed snake Colololuu, who in turn is controlled by an infinite regression of supersuper....transcendental patterns/beings/entities. How is this ridiculous account of metaphysics any less likely than God doing everything you said?

Do you write for South Park?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 07:45:40 AM
No, but I think Conservationists' world view of a corporeally confused God deserves mockery equal to Scientology, Super Adventurer's Club, etc. Of course, on this forum it's only hip and fashionable to apply that to Judeo-Christianity.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 03, 2010, 08:14:17 AM
Interesting how you choose to ignore the following sentence, since it completely negates any point you're trying to make. What I find even more interesting is that you're unable to converse yourself, instead relying on the referencing of others. Even still, that later post of his is contradictory and idiotic. An essence which isn't really an essence but is because it's non-existence justifies it's existence exists and is the cause of all action in the Universe while at the same time is the cause of nothing and is merely a transcendental ideal even though we're rejecting dualism...What? This almost makes my pixie dust theory seem plausible...

The notion of an ANUSian God is laughable too, we've thrown out our slavery towards a Judeo-Christian God only to be reined in by one developed by the Cult figures on ANUS. Let me take your ideals and adopt them as my own, because I am surely lost without you Prozak!

Good spot.

Quote from: Conservationist
The ANUSian "God" is a transcendental idealist creation, an emergent pattern which has no existence yet exists in everything.
In other words:
Quote
The ANUSian "God" is a ... creation ... which has no existence.
By his own words the ANUSian "God" does not exist.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Grim Morrison on May 03, 2010, 08:31:36 AM
Maybe you're looking at that too simplistically? What he means could be that this "god"(for lack of a better word) exists not in and of itself but in the manifested reality of everything.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Dead_Soul on May 03, 2010, 08:45:14 AM
No, but I think Conservationists' world view of a corporeally confused God deserves mockery equal to Scientology, Super Adventurer's Club, etc. Of course, on this forum it's only hip and fashionable to apply that to Judeo-Christianity.
I think I understand now. You see this concept as being tautological, correct? Fair enough.

I'm arguing for God as a purely aesthetic phenomenon. After all, has pixie dust ever inspired anyone to create anything like this? http://ingoodfaith.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/william_blake_jacobs_ladder.jpg
http://caravanofdreams.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/whirlwindoflovers.jpg
http://thewordwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/william-blake-beatrice-1824-71.jpg
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/38/20138-004-7CEC02D9.jpg
http://www.gloversvilleschools.org/kings/teachers/tdavis/leonardo_da_vinci_last_supper.jpg
http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/The%20great%20red%20dragon%20and%20the%20woman%20clothed%20with%20the%20sun.jpg
http://www.boncherry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/paris-notre-dame-facade.jpg
Even if we were the reduce the term of God to a purely abstract/non-transcendental concept (think Eternal Recurrence), these questions still remain

- Why do I need this concept?
- Under this concept, is my future determined by God?
- Is free will non-existent?
- Is anyone responsible for anything?
- Do I exist as an individual?

Eternal recurrence I see as an empowering exercise of individual free will, God as an underlying essence of reality is both deterministic and prohibitive.
You do realize that the eternal recurrence is the penultimate expression of determinism, right (see Beyond God And Evil)?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 03, 2010, 08:57:17 AM

God has a social functionality that a magical ninja chicken-hippopotamus doesn't. At a functional level, God is the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crystallization of individual and communal destiny... I'd like examples of pixie dust doing that. Of course, God can derive in bad results, as every high concept does (heroism, love... black metal).

Now, the metaphysical level is even better. As Schuon said: "The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as It transcends them." Does pixie dust serve as concept to contain that which is beyond the multiplicity? Does pixie dust seeks to solve the duality between subject and object?
Pixie dust could do all of those things if it was the cultural norm (who knows, maybe in some cultures a pixie dust like concept has the same transcendental qualities that God does in Western cultures). Pixie dust could have "the sublimation of ethos and the teleological crysallisation of individual and communal destiny", could "serve as a concept to contain that which is beyond multiplicity" and "solve the duality between subject and object".

Citation needed.

The notion of an ANUSian God is laughable too, we've thrown out our slavery towards a Judeo-Christian God only to be reined in by one developed by the Cult figures on ANUS. Let me take your ideals and adopt them as my own, because I am surely lost without you Prozak!

That's useless. I could say that you are showing yourself to be 'unique' or 'independant' opposing the consensus established here, but I don't do it because I would look like an idiot for trying to guess your emotional motivations as explanation of your arguments.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 09:08:51 AM
No, but I think Conservationists' world view of a corporeally confused God deserves mockery equal to Scientology, Super Adventurer's Club, etc. Of course, on this forum it's only hip and fashionable to apply that to Judeo-Christianity.
I think I understand now. You see this concept as a tautology, correct?

I'm arguing for God as a purely aesthetic phenomenon. After all, has pixie dust ever inspired anyone to create anything like this? http://ingoodfaith.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/william_blake_jacobs_ladder.jpg
http://caravanofdreams.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/whirlwindoflovers.jpg
http://thewordwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/william-blake-beatrice-1824-71.jpg
I sympathise with this viewpoint, but there's plenty of people who have been inspired by non-transcendental sources (personally I'm an admirer of futurism). It's hard to say whether these art works would of been possible in the past without God, or conversely, if other works could of been created on a Godless timeline. And yes, tautology is a part of the problem. This notion of God is conveniently everything while at the same time being nothing. The way it was initially stated made it seem like a legitimate world view. It might as well not exist.
You do realize that the eternal recurrence is the penultimate expression of determinism, right (see Beyond God And Evil)?
Eternal recurrence is merely an exercise in overcoming determinism by placing the burden on the individual to do the "right" thing, make the most of life etc (free will), if it was anything other than a hypothetical question, then yes, it would be extreme determinism. Eternal recurrence succeeds in every aspect where the ANUSian God fails.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 03, 2010, 09:15:58 AM
An essence which isn't really an essence but is because it's non-existence justifies it's existence exists and is the cause of all action in the Universe while at the same time is the cause of nothing and is merely a transcendental ideal even though we're rejecting dualism...What?[/u][/b] This almost makes my pixie dust theory seem plausible...


Nothing comes from nothing. God, understood as Atma, serves as an opposition of Maya, but, there's no dualism: “God did not veil Himself from thee by some reality coexisting with Him, since there is no reality other than He. What veils Him from thee is naught but the illusion that something outside Him could possess any reality.” Ibn ‘Ata’illah.

You should do better declaring yourself an atheist, and denying that anything which is not matter exists. You have bad understanding of metaphysics, why don't declare yourself an atheist in order to say that all metaphysics or theology are just game of words about something that doesn't exist, so you simply don't getting into that with bad arguments?

How would you, not being an atheist, name this possible non-apparent reality?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 03, 2010, 09:44:06 AM
I've never said that it didn't exist, I don't know if it exists or not, I'm not psychic and I'm not making any claims about anything other than what I have experienced empirically (I can reject this too and resort to skepticism, but for sake of argumentation I won't). You and Conservationist on the other hand make wild claims and add countless entities to express a point that need not be based on real phenomena nor expressed in that manner.

This possible non-apparent reality could be the realm of the pixies. I don't know. I've never had to urge to conceptualise it. My scope of understanding begins and ends at empirical inquiry.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 03, 2010, 10:06:55 AM
Quote from: Grim Morrison
Maybe you're looking at that too simplistically?
I don't think so.  I think I'm looking at it with exactly the correct amount of simplicity.
Quote
What he means could be that this "god"(for lack of a better word) exists not in and of itself but in the manifested reality of everything.
This can be a very long and drawn out discussion, so I'll have to ask that you elaborate on this point before I can respond.  I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying.  Could you please explain exactly what you mean in the clearest terms possible? (pretend I'm a complete moron)

Quote from: Octuple
You should do better declaring yourself an atheist, and denying that anything which is not matter exists.
Why would he declare himself an atheist if he isn't one?  And why would anyone claim that only matter exists?  Matter is just one of the many forms of energy, and what about things like space, time, dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, and quantum fluctuations?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: druidakoda on May 03, 2010, 10:42:21 AM
If someone experiences God (or similar) there's no point in telling them that this is not enough to clarify that there is a God; it is to them. This is my point about needing to be transcendent to prove or disprove God, because you'd need to be able to experience someone else's experience. Yes there are some things that you can't hope to prove and it's not right to argue that this is a substanceless stance.

If nothing else this thread proves that there is such a thing as staunch agnosticism.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 03, 2010, 10:49:44 AM

Quote from: Octuple
You should do better declaring yourself an atheist, and denying that anything which is not matter exists.
Why would he declare himself an atheist if he isn't one?  And why would anyone claim that only matter exists?  Matter is just one of the many forms of energy, and what about things like space, time, dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, and quantum fluctuations?

Because he's ridiculing something that he considers possible. It is not that all atheists make caricaturizations of believer's arguments, but doing so, then not offering a more plausible alternative concept to the posibility of spiritual reality, makes all of his criticism to fall into a very unstable quasi-denial of spiritual reality.

Also, a tenet of materialism is that energy or dark matter are forms of matter, in denial of spiritual substance. Thus, if we claim that things outside matter can exist, there's the possibility of the existence of an immortal soul among space, time, dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, and quantum fluctuations.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 03, 2010, 01:59:24 PM
Quote from: Octuple
Because he's ridiculing something that he considers possible. It is not that all atheists make caricaturizations of believer's arguments, but doing so, then not offering a more plausible alternative concept to the posibility of spiritual reality, makes all of his criticism to fall into a very unstable quasi-denial of spiritual reality.
I see what you mean.  However, I am not aware of any spiritual experience that cannot be replicated, with great orders of magnitude, by mind altering substances.  This leads me to believe that whatever spiritual reality exists, it is completely within the realm of scientific understanding of material brain processes.

Quote
Also, a tenet of materialism is that energy or dark matter are forms of matter
Well, that's stupid.

Quote
if we claim that things outside matter can exist, there's the possibility of the existence of an immortal soul
Yes, but it just so happens that an immortal soul doesn't exist.  At least, as far as I can tell.  I'm sure you disagree.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 03, 2010, 02:52:57 PM
Quote from: Octuple
Also, a tenet of materialism is that energy or dark matter are forms of matter
Well, that's stupid.

Materialism

1.- A proposition about the existent or the real: that only matter (q.v.) is existent or real; that matter is the primordial or fundamental constituent of the universe; atomism; that only sensible entities, processes, or content are existent or real; that the universe is not governed by intelligence, purpose, or final causes; that everything is strictly caused by material (inanimate, non-mental, or having certain elementary physical powers) processes or entities (mechanism); that mental entities, processes, or events (though existent) are caused solely by material entities, processes, or events and themselves have no causal effect (epiphenomenalism); that nothing supernatural exists (naturalism); that nothing mental exists;

2.- a proposition about explanation of the existent or the real: that everything is explainable in terms of matter in motion or matter and energy or simply matter (depending upon conception of matter entertained) ; that all qualitative differences are reducible to quantitative differences; that the only objects science can investigate are the physical or material (that is, public, manipulable, non-mental, natural, or sensible)...

Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, 1942 (http://www.ditext.com/runes/m.html)

It's obvious that for the purposes of this discussion, it's correct to say that dark matter or energy are not outside of matter. I think you thought that I was referring to a strictly undifferentiated levels within Physics.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 03, 2010, 04:14:21 PM
No, but I think Conservationists' world view of a corporeally confused God deserves mockery equal to Scientology, Super Adventurer's Club, etc. Of course, on this forum it's only hip and fashionable to apply that to Judeo-Christianity.

This is a common criticism I see against the ANUS website, especially in regards to the users at the forum. I like reading the website, but I don't consider myself a "member" or a subscriber to its ideology. You seem to place an almost religious focus on the idea of the individual making his own decisions. Would you say that it is more important for an individual to be different to the point of choosing common paradigms of originality in order to preserve his status as individual, or more so for that individual to make some choices that perhaps are typical because he finds value in those choices regardless of whether one or six billion people agree? I tend to think towards the latter, but I'm just curious as to your perspective. I've seen many people slavishly promote what is commonly perceived as individual to the extent that they've almost become Christians themselves.

 Anyway, I don't feel that the universe has any will, or underlying force that predetermines my decisions for a definable goal. I think my decisions are predetermined in the sense that I am limited to basing them upon environmental influences, genetic predisposition included. To me religion has served the exact same purpose as art, so I do not see it is as an ideology of any sort. I more so see it as having no purpose, point, or necessity, at least when it is utilized with any bit of intelligence. Religion to me seems to be a subset of a cultural philosophy, or being. Cultures base architecture, daily events of life-celebration, poetry, and music on religious entities. I think the idea of this is that the metaphorical nature of the religious symbols lends themselves to being used in an artistic manner that is ambiguous. My favorite kinds of art don't attempt to prove their necessity by teaching me a lesson in and of themselves, but convey an experience that I draw an appreciation of life from out of the joy of that experience. I think Schopenhauer had some similar ideas. What are your thoughts on the concept? 
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 03, 2010, 04:21:15 PM
Quote from: Octuple
Also, a tenet of materialism is that energy or dark matter are forms of matter
Well, that's stupid.

Materialism

1.- A proposition about the existent or the real: that only matter (q.v.) is existent or real; that matter is the primordial or fundamental constituent of the universe; atomism; that only sensible entities, processes, or content are existent or real; that the universe is not governed by intelligence, purpose, or final causes; that everything is strictly caused by material (inanimate, non-mental, or having certain elementary physical powers) processes or entities (mechanism); that mental entities, processes, or events (though existent) are caused solely by material entities, processes, or events and themselves have no causal effect (epiphenomenalism); that nothing supernatural exists (naturalism); that nothing mental exists;

2.- a proposition about explanation of the existent or the real: that everything is explainable in terms of matter in motion or matter and energy or simply matter (depending upon conception of matter entertained) ; that all qualitative differences are reducible to quantitative differences; that the only objects science can investigate are the physical or material (that is, public, manipulable, non-mental, natural, or sensible)...

Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, 1942 (http://www.ditext.com/runes/m.html)

It's obvious that for the purposes of this discussion, it's correct to say that dark matter or energy are not outside of matter. I think you thought that I was referring to a strictly undifferentiated levels within Physics.
Redefining terminology in order to twist a philosophical concept into legitimacy is stupid.  One of the main objections in this thread is that people are redefining concepts, such as God, in unnecessary and/or disingenuous ways.  This issue with Materialism is even worse, because they have done this with a technical scientific term.  Claiming energy is a form of matter is inverted thinking.  Claiming dark matter is matter is absurd, because the only things we know about dark matter are that it has a gravitational field and it doesn't appear to collide with matter or itself.  How could they possibly assert any knowledge about something we don't even understand.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 03, 2010, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Octuple
Also, a tenet of materialism is that energy or dark matter are forms of matter
Well, that's stupid.

Materialism

1.- A proposition about the existent or the real: that only matter (q.v.) is existent or real; that matter is the primordial or fundamental constituent of the universe; atomism; that only sensible entities, processes, or content are existent or real; that the universe is not governed by intelligence, purpose, or final causes; that everything is strictly caused by material (inanimate, non-mental, or having certain elementary physical powers) processes or entities (mechanism); that mental entities, processes, or events (though existent) are caused solely by material entities, processes, or events and themselves have no causal effect (epiphenomenalism); that nothing supernatural exists (naturalism); that nothing mental exists;

2.- a proposition about explanation of the existent or the real: that everything is explainable in terms of matter in motion or matter and energy or simply matter (depending upon conception of matter entertained) ; that all qualitative differences are reducible to quantitative differences; that the only objects science can investigate are the physical or material (that is, public, manipulable, non-mental, natural, or sensible)...

Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, 1942 (http://www.ditext.com/runes/m.html)

It's obvious that for the purposes of this discussion, it's correct to say that dark matter or energy are not outside of matter. I think you thought that I was referring to a strictly undifferentiated levels within Physics.
Redefining terminology in order to twist a philosophical concept into legitimacy is stupid.  One of the main objections in this thread is that people are redefining concepts, such as God, in unnecessary and/or disingenuous ways.  This issue with Materialism is even worse, because they have done this with a technical scientific term.  Claiming energy is a form of matter is inverted thinking.  Claiming dark matter is matter is absurd, because the only things we know about dark matter are that it has a gravitational field and it doesn't appear to collide with matter or itself.  How could they possibly assert any knowledge about something we don't even understand.

Well, I can't tell if dark matter theoretically occupying  a place in space makes it matter or not, so, I'll assume that you are technically right, neither dark matter and energy are matter. Anyway, in the metaphysical discussion, materialism needs the inclusion of dark matter and energy within its ontological monism, which is excluding to spiritual substance. It seems that the term "physicalism" is even less clear than materialism in this regard.

Edit: I don't think that it is a deliberated twist, or that it is stupid. The classic concept of Materialism has not been built upon the more recent discussion of energy and dark matter. If any, it would need a redefinition, but as I say, even in those conditions it keeps its ontological functionality.  It was my fault to throw the asseveration that from this philosophical materialistic approach, dark matter and energy are understood as matter... without taking care of these issues.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Eleison on May 03, 2010, 10:40:42 PM
I've never said that it didn't exist, I don't know if it exists or not, I'm not psychic and I'm not making any claims about anything other than what I have experienced empirically (I can reject this too and resort to skepticism, but for sake of argumentation I won't). You and Conservationist on the other hand make wild claims and add countless entities to express a point that need not be based on real phenomena nor expressed in that manner.

This possible non-apparent reality could be the realm of the pixies. I don't know. I've never had to urge to conceptualise it. My scope of understanding begins and ends at empirical inquiry.

No in this thread, at any point, has asserted the existence of these 'entities' you describe.  God is a term we use to describe something already self-evident in Reality as such.  Your deliberate misrepresentation of others arguments has no place in philosophical discussion.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Helmholtz on May 03, 2010, 11:23:56 PM
“The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with God or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged and numerous senses could perceive.”

http://www.hessian.org/#top1
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Dead_Soul on May 04, 2010, 12:00:04 AM
No, but I think Conservationists' world view of a corporeally confused God deserves mockery equal to Scientology, Super Adventurer's Club, etc. Of course, on this forum it's only hip and fashionable to apply that to Judeo-Christianity.
I think I understand now. You see this concept as a tautology, correct?

I'm arguing for God as a purely aesthetic phenomenon. After all, has pixie dust ever inspired anyone to create anything like this? http://ingoodfaith.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/william_blake_jacobs_ladder.jpg
http://caravanofdreams.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/whirlwindoflovers.jpg
http://thewordwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/william-blake-beatrice-1824-71.jpg
I sympathise with this viewpoint, but there's plenty of people who have been inspired by non-transcendental sources (personally I'm an admirer of futurism). It's hard to say whether these art works would of been possible in the past without God, or conversely, if other works could of been created on a Godless timeline.

This seems like pointless speculation to me. The fact of the matter is that the concept of "God" or "gods" was a fundamental influence upon the development of human artistic expression and culture. Whether or not anything else could have played that role is irrelevant.



Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Helmholtz on May 04, 2010, 12:02:42 AM
free will

When the hell did we start talking about this?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 04, 2010, 03:50:59 AM
I've never said that it didn't exist, I don't know if it exists or not, I'm not psychic and I'm not making any claims about anything other than what I have experienced empirically (I can reject this too and resort to skepticism, but for sake of argumentation I won't). You and Conservationist on the other hand make wild claims and add countless entities to express a point that need not be based on real phenomena nor expressed in that manner.

This possible non-apparent reality could be the realm of the pixies. I don't know. I've never had to urge to conceptualise it. My scope of understanding begins and ends at empirical inquiry.

No in this thread, at any point, has asserted the existence of these 'entities' you describe.  God is a term we use to describe something already self-evident in Reality as such.  Your deliberate misrepresentation of others arguments has no place in philosophical discussion.
You just flat out don't learn do you? You're saying you don't assert it's existence, then at the same say it's self-evident. The number two is self-evident because it describes a configuration of apparent reality, while containing no properties of it's own. God doesn't describe anything, it doesn't do anything, but it has multiple properties; it's garbage, it's useless, flush it down the toilet of history.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 04, 2010, 03:52:38 AM
free will

When the hell did we start talking about this?
When rejecting Conservationist's position as deterministic garbage, servant to things that don't exist because of an underlying fear of purposelessness.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 04, 2010, 04:01:23 AM
This seems like pointless speculation to me. The fact of the matter is that the concept of "God" or "gods" was a fundamental influence upon the development of human artistic expression and culture. Whether or not anything else could have played that role is irrelevant.
There's no pointless speculation other than logic even a 5th grader could comprehend. You say God is justified because of his influence on the art, even though art would have continued with or without God. Your argument is akin to saying space travel wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Cold War. Does that justify the need for a Cold War?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 04, 2010, 05:15:45 AM
This seems like pointless speculation to me. The fact of the matter is that the concept of "God" or "gods" was a fundamental influence upon the development of human artistic expression and culture. Whether or not anything else could have played that role is irrelevant.
There's no pointless speculation other than logic even a 5th grader could comprehend. You say God is justified because of his influence on the art, even though art would have continued with or without God. Your argument is akin to saying space travel wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Cold War. Does that justify the need for a Cold War?

Why do we have a heart? To serve a function - to pump blood around the body. That is the reason it evolved to its current structure, encoded in our DNA. What you're saying is that another organ or structure could have served this function, therefore a heart was and is unnecessary. It's entirely irrelevant because that's simply the way it turned out.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 04, 2010, 05:55:31 AM
This seems like pointless speculation to me. The fact of the matter is that the concept of "God" or "gods" was a fundamental influence upon the development of human artistic expression and culture. Whether or not anything else could have played that role is irrelevant.
There's no pointless speculation other than logic even a 5th grader could comprehend. You say God is justified because of his influence on the art, even though art would have continued with or without God. Your argument is akin to saying space travel wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Cold War. Does that justify the need for a Cold War?

Why do we have a heart? To serve a function - to pump blood around the body. That is the reason it evolved to its current structure, encoded in our DNA. What you're saying is that another organ or structure could have served this function, therefore a heart was and is unnecessary. It's entirely irrelevant because that's simply the way it turned out.
Your whole argument begins with poor logic and ends with a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution isn't teleological and you obviously misunderstand it. Things don't come to existence to serve a function in evolution, they occur by chance and become the norm because that function is useful and contributes to sexual success. Whatever organism first developed a heart didn't develop it to pump blood, it had the ability to pump blood which then increased it's survivability, increasing it's chances of becoming sexually successful.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: radiant on May 04, 2010, 06:14:21 AM
God is a term we use to describe something already self-evident in Reality as such.  Your deliberate misrepresentation of others arguments has no place in philosophical discussion.
self-evident
self-evident
self-evident
self-evident

you might as just say "I am an uneducated faggot," lolololololololololollolololoololoololololololololol

Here's an idea: God, gods, goddesses, and moonmen have no place in a philosophical discussion (but calling people fags is totally fair game). Consult Wittgenstein's Tractatus for proof that "mystical" talk, because it tries to discuss something outside of the world, is by definition nonsense, as there is nothing outside of the world. Of course you then counter with the claim that "my definition of god encompasses the totality of the world" and then I ask why you decided to confuse yourself and everyone around you by saying "god" when you mean "everything."
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Stars Down To Earth on May 04, 2010, 06:54:53 AM
God is a term we use to describe something already self-evident in Reality as such.  Your deliberate misrepresentation of others arguments has no place in philosophical discussion.
self-evident
self-evident
self-evident
self-evident

you might as just say "I am an uneducated faggot," lolololololololololollolololoololoololololololololol

Here's an idea: God, gods, goddesses, and moonmen have no place in a philosophical discussion (but calling people fags is totally fair game). Consult Wittgenstein's Tractatus for proof that "mystical" talk, because it tries to discuss something outside of the world, is by definition nonsense, as there is nothing outside of the world. Of course you then counter with the claim that "my definition of god encompasses the totality of the world" and then I ask why you decided to confuse yourself and everyone around you by saying "god" when you mean "everything."

Are you by any chance bicurious? Finally some much needed sense!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 04, 2010, 07:17:04 AM
This seems like pointless speculation to me. The fact of the matter is that the concept of "God" or "gods" was a fundamental influence upon the development of human artistic expression and culture. Whether or not anything else could have played that role is irrelevant.
There's no pointless speculation other than logic even a 5th grader could comprehend. You say God is justified because of his influence on the art, even though art would have continued with or without God. Your argument is akin to saying space travel wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Cold War. Does that justify the need for a Cold War?

Why do we have a heart? To serve a function - to pump blood around the body. That is the reason it evolved to its current structure, encoded in our DNA. What you're saying is that another organ or structure could have served this function, therefore a heart was and is unnecessary. It's entirely irrelevant because that's simply the way it turned out.
Your whole argument begins with poor logic and ends with a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution isn't teleological and you obviously misunderstand it. Things don't come to existence to serve a function in evolution, they occur by chance and become the norm because that function is useful and contributes to sexual success. Whatever organism first developed a heart didn't develop it to pump blood, it had the ability to pump blood which then increased it's survivability, increasing it's chances of becoming sexually successful.

Of course I understand evolution. When I asked why do we have a heart I was not asking by what mechanism did we come to have a heart, but what role does the heart have? I think it is safe to assume everyone here has had a basic education in biology.

The fact is, our organs came to exist because, yes, by the mechanism of natural selection, they were successful in that particular environment. By saying God is irrelevant because something else could have had the same influence on art and culture that God actually did influence in the real world, you would have us change history.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 04, 2010, 07:41:14 AM
Here's an idea: God, gods, goddesses, and moonmen have no place in a philosophical discussion (but calling people fags is totally fair game). Consult Wittgenstein's Tractatus for proof that "mystical" talk, because it tries to discuss something outside of the world, is by definition nonsense, as there is nothing outside of the world. Of course you then counter with the claim that "my definition of god encompasses the totality of the world" and then I ask why you decided to confuse yourself and everyone around you by saying "god" when you mean "everything."

Because "everything" isn't "everything".  Duh.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 04, 2010, 07:45:19 AM
Quote from: esoteric
By saying God is irrelevant because something else could have had the same influence on art and culture that God actually did influence in the real world, you would have us change history.
Except God didn't influence art and culture.  What influenced them was a conception of God.  If you are going to argue that God is merely a concept, then the discussion is finished.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 04, 2010, 07:46:00 AM
Except God didn't influence art and culture.  What influenced them was their conception of God.

Fixed :)
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 04, 2010, 07:49:01 AM
Except God didn't influence art and culture.  What influenced them was their conception of God.

Fixed :)
I actually have no problem with your fix, as the point still stands.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Somnambulist on May 04, 2010, 11:51:13 AM
I guess Matt Stone and Trey Parker were right, God doesn't exist.  oh well, time to kill myself!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 04, 2010, 12:36:57 PM
Except God didn't influence art and culture.  What influenced them was their conception of God.

Fixed :)
I actually have no problem with your fix, as the point still stands.

Not quite, given that every single individual intelligence in existence could have its own conception of something which exists objectively as a single thing which is none of those things but which may be similar to none or the majority of the conceptions of it.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 04, 2010, 12:40:28 PM
Quote from: esoteric
By saying God is irrelevant because something else could have had the same influence on art and culture that God actually did influence in the real world, you would have us change history.
Except God didn't influence art and culture.  What influenced them was a conception of God.  If you are going to argue that God is merely a concept, then the discussion is finished.
I
Everything we know is a concept, and doesn't exist. Language is a concept, thought is a concept, civilization is a concept. The only thing which exists is existence itself, and it cannot be fully described. This isn't a defense of religious thought, I'm just trying to point out that I think we're just having a semantic debate here. Scientific terminology is the same as religious terminology, it's a concept that doesn't adequately describe reality because it only has value to ourselves. You may ask, than why speak, or do anything? That would be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I encourage creating these concepts despite their inability to adequately describe reality, because it betrays a desire to live life despite the lack of inherent goal, purpose, or function.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 04, 2010, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: Cargest
Not quite, given that every single individual intelligence in existence could have its own conception of something which exists objectively as a single thing which is none of those things but which may be similar to none or the majority of the conceptions of it.
I understand.  However, the fact that there is one or even many conceptions of a thing does not indicate that such a thing actually exists.  Esoteric was claiming God had direct influence on something, but the only way he can make that argument is if he argues God is only a concept.  You may feel differently, in which case you are on firmer intellectual ground.

Quote from: Erosion
Everything we know is a concept, and doesn't exist. Language is a concept, thought is a concept, civilization is a concept. The only thing which exists is existence itself, and it cannot be fully described. This isn't a defense of religious thought, I'm just trying to point out that I think we're just having a semantic debate here. Scientific terminology is the same as religious terminology, it's a concept that doesn't adequately describe reality because it only has value to ourselves. You may ask, than why speak, or do anything? That would be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I encourage creating these concepts despite their inability to adequately describe reality, because it betrays a desire to live life despite the lack of inherent goal, purpose, or function.
If I throw a rock at somebody's head, it is going to have an effect on them (i.e. knock them over).  That effect was caused by something that actually exists (the rock) not a concept.  Concepts can correspond to things that exist.

Scientific terminology and religious terminology are not the same.  Science is grounded in empirical evidence and attempts to describe things as they are.  Religion is grounded in spiritual experiences, superstition, group cohecion, and moral impulses.  It attempts to describe things metaphorically.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 04, 2010, 01:10:41 PM
Quote from: Cargest
Not quite, given that every single individual intelligence in existence could have its own conception of something which exists objectively as a single thing which is none of those things but which may be similar to none or the majority of the conceptions of it.
I understand.  However, the fact that there is one or even many conceptions of a thing does not indicate that such a thing actually exists.  Esoteric was claiming God had direct influence on something, but the only way he can make that argument is if he argues God is only a concept.  You may feel differently, in which case you are on firmer intellectual ground.

Quote from: Erosion
Everything we know is a concept, and doesn't exist. Language is a concept, thought is a concept, civilization is a concept. The only thing which exists is existence itself, and it cannot be fully described. This isn't a defense of religious thought, I'm just trying to point out that I think we're just having a semantic debate here. Scientific terminology is the same as religious terminology, it's a concept that doesn't adequately describe reality because it only has value to ourselves. You may ask, than why speak, or do anything? That would be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I encourage creating these concepts despite their inability to adequately describe reality, because it betrays a desire to live life despite the lack of inherent goal, purpose, or function.
If I throw a rock at somebody's head, it is going to have an effect on them (i.e. knock them over).  That effect was caused by something that actually exists (the rock) not a concept.  Concepts can correspond to things that exist.

Scientific terminology and religious terminology are not the same.  Science is grounded in empirical evidence and attempts to describe things as they are.  Religion is grounded in spiritual experiences, superstition, group cohecion, and moral impulses.  It attempts to describe things metaphorically.

The value of empirical evidence, as in the idea that we'd prefer it to insanity and sodomizing ourselves, is purely human. Thus the idea of empirical evidence is only a concept. Science is another concept that has an evaluation in the conceptual realm only, and it is grounded on an idea that we find value in only conceptually. If you throw a rock at someone's head, the manner in which they interpret the action is completely conceptual, even if they interpret it at themselves getting hit by a rock in the head. We know the properties, which are concepts, and form, which is a concept, of a rock, but do you think those properties and form are described in absolute terms in some universal blueprint that is beyond reach by normal human ability? If so, how Christian of you.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: radiant on May 04, 2010, 01:21:58 PM
Here's an idea: God, gods, goddesses, and moonmen have no place in a philosophical discussion (but calling people fags is totally fair game). Consult Wittgenstein's Tractatus for proof that "mystical" talk, because it tries to discuss something outside of the world, is by definition nonsense, as there is nothing outside of the world. Of course you then counter with the claim that "my definition of god encompasses the totality of the world" and then I ask why you decided to confuse yourself and everyone around you by saying "god" when you mean "everything."

Because "everything" isn't "everything".  Duh.
Wow, that's some brilliant philosophizing right there. Cargést, Ph.D! I can't wait for the book: On the Genealogy of Being Fucking Retarded

Here's a question: if "everything" isn't actually "everything," what the fuck is it? I'm having a hard time wrapping my prole brain around the notion that there is more to life than everything, but it would be pretty sweet if someone could hit me up with the details.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 04, 2010, 01:25:18 PM
Here's an idea: God, gods, goddesses, and moonmen have no place in a philosophical discussion (but calling people fags is totally fair game). Consult Wittgenstein's Tractatus for proof that "mystical" talk, because it tries to discuss something outside of the world, is by definition nonsense, as there is nothing outside of the world. Of course you then counter with the claim that "my definition of god encompasses the totality of the world" and then I ask why you decided to confuse yourself and everyone around you by saying "god" when you mean "everything."

Because "everything" isn't "everything".  Duh.
Wow, that's some brilliant philosophizing right there. Cargést, Ph.D! I can't wait for the book: On the Genealogy of Being Fucking Retarded

Here's a question: if "everything" isn't actually "everything," what the fuck is it? I'm having a hard time wrapping my prole brain around the notion that there is more to life than everything, but it would be pretty sweet if someone could hit me up with the details.

That was a really bad response to a poorly written statement. If I'm not overstepping my boundaries, I think that Cargest may be attempting to point out that thoughts and concepts have as much of an impact on reality, in a round-a-bout manner, as the interaction of physical elements. However, the idea of "everything" easily encompasses thought as well. Hey, isn't using the term everything kind of like using the term God? ABOLISH IT!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 04, 2010, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: Erosion
If you throw a rock at someone's head, the manner in which they interpret the action is completely conceptual, even if they interpret it at themselves getting hit by a rock in the head.
I agree that both my and his experiences of the event are conceptual, but those concepts are corresponding to actual things.  There is a rock that exists and it will have an effect of the person hit that is independent of our experiences.  They could be comatose and the rock would still have a physical effect on them.

Quote
The value of empirical evidence, as in the idea that we'd prefer it to insanity and sodomizing ourselves, is purely human.
All values are purely human.  There is no inherent value to anything.

Quote
We know the properties, which are concepts, and form, which is a concept, of a rock, but do you think those properties and form are described in absolute terms in some universal blueprint that is beyond reach by normal human ability? If so, how Christian of you.
I believe that reality exists and is not an illusion.  However, we do not have direct cognitive access to it, only perspective.  Parts of our perspective correspond to actual parts of reality and other parts don't.  Differentiating between the two requires a methodology.  I think logical reasoning, science, and mathematics are the best tools we have for this job.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 04, 2010, 01:33:36 PM
Quote from: Erosion
If you throw a rock at someone's head, the manner in which they interpret the action is completely conceptual, even if they interpret it at themselves getting hit by a rock in the head.
I agree that both my and his experiences of the event are conceptual, but those concepts are corresponding to actual things.  There is a rock that exists and it will have an effect of the person hit that is independent of our experiences.  They could be comatose and the rock would still have a physical effect on them.

Quote
The value of empirical evidence, as in the idea that we'd prefer it to insanity and sodomizing ourselves, is purely human.
All values are purely human.  There is no inherent value to anything.

Quote
We know the properties, which are concepts, and form, which is a concept, of a rock, but do you think those properties and form are described in absolute terms in some universal blueprint that is beyond reach by normal human ability? If so, how Christian of you.
I believe that reality exists and is not an illusion.  However, we do not have direct cognitive access to it, only perspective.  Parts of our perspective correspond to actual parts of reality and some don't.  Differentiating between the two requires a methodology.  I think logical reasoning, science, and mathematics are the best tools we have for this job.

I agree with all of this, but I do not think a purely functional perspective creates a sufficient methodology for the act of living itself. I think a purely functional perspective eventually leads to resentment of the world for not working in a formulaic manner in every instance, and thus eventually seeks to find solutions to things that I feel are of paramount importance to the human experience: experience itself. How do you feel about this? Keep in mind I'm not accusing what you said of implying or advocating a purely functional viewpoint.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 04, 2010, 01:54:15 PM
Erosion's on the right track re my hasty negation, and radiant responded far better than I could have hoped.

I don't have the time to argue this bollockery with you people fully - God exists, and nothing is changed, or he doesn't, and nothing is changed.  I prefer to consider God to exist because it ties in nicely with the concept of cosmic consciousness (such as was effectively proven by experiments in the field of Quantum Physics, that two particles having been together at one point will retain a "memory" of each other [more or less, paraphrasing here]).  There is an obvious order to this reality, and (for some reason) my ordered mind recognises similar processes between itself and its exterior.  I call this "God" - it's a good concept, which can be understood at many different levels, depending on the situation in which the concept arises (in everyday life, God is that which is beyond Man; in this discussion, God is reality exterior to my mind [these two different perspectives do not cancel each other out, but, of course, cannot coexist in a healthy mind]).

My apologies if you've already covered this, I'm simply adding fuel to the fire to watch the flames go higher.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Dead_Soul on May 04, 2010, 02:12:01 PM
This seems like pointless speculation to me. The fact of the matter is that the concept of "God" or "gods" was a fundamental influence upon the development of human artistic expression and culture. Whether or not anything else could have played that role is irrelevant.
There's no pointless speculation other than logic even a 5th grader could comprehend. You say God is justified because of his influence on the art, even though art would have continued with or without God. Your argument is akin to saying space travel wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Cold War. Does that justify the need for a Cold War?
I suppose I should have expressed myself more clearly.

In the timeline that we are concerned with (the one that, you know, actually happened) the belief in gods or God played a pivotal role in the development of civilization. To ask if anything else could have done the job is meaningless; the past is past, and we can only work with what we have.

Given human nature, though, it almost seems inevitable. Humans evolved an innate tendency to anthropomorphize any natural phenomena that they don't understand, which gave rise to the belief in gods, though I suppose you would have known that had you not flunked out of third grade social studies :) If you need a more systematic analysis of that process, I recommend David Hume's classic "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", or Nietzsche's "On Truth And Lies In A Nonmoral Sense".

You've piqued my curiosity in regards to futurism. What do you recommend (in terms of literature, movies, etc.)? I find most modern art to be ephemeral, though, so please don't suggest any period pieces.

One more thing. Why are you so dependent upon free will? You almost sound like a Christian. As someone studying the behavioral sciences, I'm sure that you're aware that free will has come under fire in recent years. Would you be willing to denounce those findings in favor of your crutch? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSgVgrC-6Y&feature=PlayList&p=5AC016C106FEE33C&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=30

Quote from: esoteric
By saying God is irrelevant because something else could have had the same influence on art and culture that God actually did influence in the real world, you would have us change history.
Except God didn't influence art and culture.  What influenced them was a conception of God.  If you are going to argue that God is merely a concept, then the discussion is finished
How so? I think that only Octuple was arguing for the actual existence of such a being.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 04, 2010, 02:14:12 PM
Quote from: Erosion
I agree with all of this, but I do not think a purely functional perspective creates a sufficient methodology for the act of living itself. I think a purely functional perspective eventually leads to resentment of the world for not working in a formulaic manner in every instance, and thus eventually seeks to find solutions to things that I feel are of paramount importance to the human experience: experience itself. How do you feel about this? Keep in mind I'm not accusing what you said of implying or advocating a purely functional viewpoint.
I partially agree with you.  I think it depends on the type of person you are talking about.  I find a purely functional perspective completely adequate for living, however it appears most people do not.  Of course, I'm a weirdo so make of that what you will.  I place the seeking of truth as my highest value, and see the maintenance of a functional society and life as a means to that end.  I think placing too much emphasis on expierence itself leads to solipsistic and hedonistic tendencies.

Quote from: Dead_Soul
How so? I think that only Octuple was arguing for the actual existence of such a being.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I was referring to the specific discussion between esoteric and I, not the broader discussion in this thread.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 04, 2010, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: Erosion
I agree with all of this, but I do not think a purely functional perspective creates a sufficient methodology for the act of living itself. I think a purely functional perspective eventually leads to resentment of the world for not working in a formulaic manner in every instance, and thus eventually seeks to find solutions to things that I feel are of paramount importance to the human experience: experience itself. How do you feel about this? Keep in mind I'm not accusing what you said of implying or advocating a purely functional viewpoint.
I partially agree with you.  I think it depends on the type of person you are talking about.  I find a purely functional perspective completely adequate for living, however it appears most people do not.  Of course, I'm a weirdo so make of that what you will.  I place the seeking of truth as my highest value, and see the maintenance of a functional society and life as a means to that end.  I think placing too much emphasis on expierence itself leads to solipsistic and hedonistic tendencies.

I also partially agree with your last statement, but I am also a weirdo who defines the creation of empires, culture, and art as carnal experiences. Most people I've met would define those ideas as functional concerns. I feel that reality always tends to cycle extensions of itself through points of growth and decay almost cyclically, and as such creates an eternal wheel of purpose, if you will. As such, I suppose you could say that I am content with the state of things at almost all times, and that my choice to support my values over others is more so a decision of defining a telos, or meaning to pursue. In light of all this, I feel that truth is a lens more so than a fact that exists beyond current human capability, and that truth will always be related to interpretation. If we completely understood the mechanics of the universe, and truth was discovered, what would you do next? It's a cliched question, I know. My friend seems to think that there's a mathematical property to value judgment, or in essence a "right" path, that can be discovered through study. I often laugh and call him a Christian when he makes this hypothesis. What's your thoughts on the idea?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 04, 2010, 02:43:04 PM
Quote from: Erosion
If we completely understood the mechanics of the universe, and truth was discovered, what would you do next?
That's an interesting question.  I haven't given it much thought, since I believe truth will never be fully attained; it will be an eternal journey.  However, so as to not dodge the question, I would simply reevaluate my prorities and begin working towards whatever my new highest value is.

Quote
My friend seems to think that there's a mathematical property to value judgment, or in essence a "right" path, that can be discovered through study. I often laugh and call him a Christian when he makes this hypothesis.
I think we can use logical/scientific/mathematic analyse to determine what the best actions are to attain our goals/values.  But the notion that we can develope (mathematically of all ways) a "correct foundational value system" is absurd.  You're right to call him a Christian.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 04, 2010, 02:59:24 PM
Quote from: Erosion
If we completely understood the mechanics of the universe, and truth was discovered, what would you do next?
That's an interesting question.  I haven't given it much thought, since I believe truth will never be fully attained; it will be an eternal journey.  However, so as to not dodge the question, I would simply reevaluate my prorities and begin working towards whatever my new highest value is.

Quote
My friend seems to think that there's a mathematical property to value judgment, or in essence a "right" path, that can be discovered through study. I often laugh and call him a Christian when he makes this hypothesis.
I think we can use logical/scientific/mathematic analyse to determine what the best actions are to attain our goals/values.  But the notion that we can develope (mathematically of all ways) a "correct foundational value system" is absurd.  You're right to call him a Christian.

This is a rather useless patronizing response, but this discussion was superb. Thank you for enlightening me.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 04, 2010, 07:35:30 PM
Quote from: Erosion
Thank you for enlightening me.
I assure you, any enlightening from me to you was purely accidental.  But thanks for the thanks, and for putting my brain to work.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Eleison on May 05, 2010, 05:47:10 AM
I've never said that it didn't exist, I don't know if it exists or not, I'm not psychic and I'm not making any claims about anything other than what I have experienced empirically (I can reject this too and resort to skepticism, but for sake of argumentation I won't). You and Conservationist on the other hand make wild claims and add countless entities to express a point that need not be based on real phenomena nor expressed in that manner.

This possible non-apparent reality could be the realm of the pixies. I don't know. I've never had to urge to conceptualise it. My scope of understanding begins and ends at empirical inquiry.

No in this thread, at any point, has asserted the existence of these 'entities' you describe.  God is a term we use to describe something already self-evident in Reality as such.  Your deliberate misrepresentation of others arguments has no place in philosophical discussion.
You just flat out don't learn do you? You're saying you don't assert it's existence, then at the same say it's self-evident. The number two is self-evident because it describes a configuration of apparent reality, while containing no properties of it's own. God doesn't describe anything, it doesn't do anything, but it has multiple properties; it's garbage, it's useless, flush it down the toilet of history.

To derive meaning from language we must break down the structure of grammatical constructs, it seems I will now be forced to do this manually.

What I said

1.  God is a term (God, three letters which could signify anything, for the purpose of our discussion, an entirely arbitrary configuration)

2.  That we use to describe something self-evident (ie. the pattern according to which reality, empirical reality, operates)

Conservationist's choice of this term has to do with a need to be holistic, and to fulfill a healthy desire for meaning in most men.

Your interpretation of the sentence goes like this...

3.  God is self-evident...

...see the difference?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Thamuz on May 05, 2010, 06:56:09 AM

Evolution is real; it is the hand of God.
Are you trying to suggest that Maradona had / has something to do with Evolution?

The wisest thing I ever read on the internet was by a guy called Scorpio.

It said something to the effect of 'all arguments are non-arguments unless at first the participants can clearly define and understand all of the terminology used."

Pretty much sums this thread up, although Stars... argues this up much better than I could, or at least could be bothered doing at this point.

The most surprising thing about the new ANUSian views (more backflips than a politician) are that they are pretty much starting to invert what they were years ago. I do not remember any ANUSian God in 2002. But honestly, this is the way of "intellectualism", silly word games and pedantry, very little real achievement or learning.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 05, 2010, 07:25:00 AM
But honestly, this is the way of "intellectualism", silly word games and pedantry, very little real achievement or learning.

This.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 05, 2010, 03:41:40 PM
No philosopher or scientist in history has been able to provide sound proof of God's non-existence. It's improbable that we will be able to obtain such proof here on this forum.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Thamuz on May 05, 2010, 04:15:17 PM
That's because the logical onus of proof isn't on non-existence.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 05, 2010, 04:25:30 PM
That's because the logical onus of proof isn't on non-existence.
This.  And no one has been claiming to be provide PROOF of anything.  There are only arguments as to the likelihood of such an entity, and what exaclty constitutes a god.  By my count, there have been 4 different types of God suggested thus far, and no one has been able to provide a convincing argument for accepting the notion of any of them.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 05, 2010, 04:52:16 PM
How about my concept of Reality as being God, as Reality fulfills all standard requisites of godhood (omnipotence, omniscience, all creation and destruction, all forces, the fact of the existence of everything as well as the actual existence of everything)?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: druidakoda on May 05, 2010, 05:10:28 PM
That's because the logical onus of proof isn't on non-existence.

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 05, 2010, 05:13:26 PM
How about my concept of Reality as being God, as Reality fulfills all standard requisites of godhood (omnipotence, omniscience, all creation and destruction, all forces, the fact of the existence of everything as well as the actual existence of everything)?
In what way does reality possess either omnipotence (infinite power) or omniscience (infinite knowledge)?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Thamuz on May 05, 2010, 06:28:31 PM

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?
Your question is not answerable. It's a non-question.

I mean, there is no framework or basis for the question in the first place. It's just a random question, in my eyes.

I can define God in your sentence however I like.

Same goes with existence.

Same goes with conclusive.

I always thought that nihilism provided a bullshit filter for reality, or at least how Stars put it 'a conceptual indifference.' Obviously not.

As I said before, this argument is just semantics and word games. It's an embarrassment that has "formally" been conducted in Western thought for well over 2500 years. Grown men who have nothing better to do but argue about something that I do not even think directly affects their life-span on earth in any meaningful way outside of their own fantasties, ulterior motives and other such "reasons."
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on May 05, 2010, 07:22:46 PM

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?
Your question is not answerable. It's a non-question.

I mean, there is no framework or basis for the question in the first place. It's just a random question, in my eyes.

I can define God in your sentence however I like.

Same goes with existence.

Same goes with conclusive.

I always thought that nihilism provided a bullshit filter for reality, or at least how Stars put it 'a conceptual indifference.' Obviously not.

As I said before, this argument is just semantics and word games. It's an embarrassment that has "formally" been conducted in Western thought for well over 2500 years. Grown men who have nothing better to do but argue about something that I do not even think directly affects their life-span on earth in any meaningful way outside of their own fantasties, ulterior motives and other such "reasons."

This.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: esoteric on May 05, 2010, 07:34:15 PM
I wouldn't have pointed it out had I not seen it at least a dozen times in this thread, but is it really necessary to post "This." every time you agree with something? Superior logic and reasoning should win arguments, not a democratic majority of votes.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 05, 2010, 07:48:14 PM
I wouldn't have pointed it out had I not seen it at least a dozen times in this thread, but is it really necessary to post "This." every time you agree with something? Superior logic and reasoning should win arguments, not a democratic majority of votes.
This.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Nimbostratus on May 05, 2010, 07:50:05 PM
How about my concept of Reality as being God, as Reality fulfills all standard requisites of godhood (omnipotence, omniscience, all creation and destruction, all forces, the fact of the existence of everything as well as the actual existence of everything)?

Is God just matter?(and dark matter and energy). Sure, it is very poetic to call the universe or everything  "God", but it is a waste of time to keep using the term if you actually don't believe that God exists. Or like some people, justifying its existence as a cultural mechanism for the populace.

It is truly despicable to hear the common complains against God from liberals who see Him as a tyrant, or as a justification of hierarchy... but certainly, for practical uses, I don't see why people need God just to have a "reverent" approach to Reality. In that case, even though when it stills theologically distinct, and just for this emotional approach, it would be better to keep Him along with Thor, Zeus and Quetzalcoatl, with the same degree of respect and credibility.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: AnHero on May 05, 2010, 08:23:42 PM
Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe [God]

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe [God].

The Universe [God] is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe [God]

Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

So ignoring the fact that he used the very loaded word "God", most of this thread didn't need to happen.

Is there any disagreement with what he's actually saying? Or were these past 8 pages just confusion about nomenclature, as Thamuz said?

For my piece:
I have to say, the concept of the thread itself is misleading. Philosophy and science may be related as ways of understanding the world if we consider science reductionist and philosophy holistic, but I don't think it was ever the role of religion to understand the world. Religion is the means by which a philosophy is taught. The concept of God (there's that word again - no one freak out!) is a way of teaching the lay people. Religious study is not philosophy because it only communicates the behavioral conclusions of it's core philosophy. The bible says "Thou shalt not steal" but not why that conduct is important.

Thereby, I wouldn't consider religion a subset or a part or a form of philosophy. I don't think they overlap - the conclusions drawn are not a subset of the though process.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on May 05, 2010, 08:33:46 PM
Quote
The split between religion and science does not exist

In principle, the statement is true. Man has always sought to understand life and living life. These are each methods for doing so. The division is a conflict over which is a better method, which in turn creates bipolar absolutes blind to context where one is always correct and the other always wrong. But, each has reached the same conclusions many times. Religions broadly intuited that which science only much later deduced with better granular certainty. It's great to have both in harmony when neither are corrupted,  politicized, or stigmatized. This is a part of that future world we need to work on.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: hoodwink on May 05, 2010, 09:05:59 PM
the problem with the point of the original post and with many being argued in this thread - and somewhat effectively, I might add - is that the vast majority of it functions in precisely the same headspace as that which dictates Osama Bin Laden is the root of all America's evils, 9/11 was an inside job, and any of the exponentially unraveling conspiracy theories so-called crazies are fond of.  and that root isn't one of information, or enlightenment, or principle, but one of arrogance.  arrogance to assume that all things can be caused and/or explained by men.  and what better "mechanism" to attribute the causes of men to than one great big invisible man.  you can call him god, or mohammed, or the illuminati group, or the easter bunny.  they're all reducible to an all-knowing, all-powerful, and most importantly, all-male entity, who rules over all things with cock-surity.  no concept,  no  matter how esoteric eludes his ken because he's nothing more than the hyperinflated image of everyone of us, everyone of us who has ever felt (rightfully so) inadequate, incomplete, flawed, ugly, corrupted.  he is the temple we accede to, and we create powerful creatures for the sake of feeding our endless need to be the center of everything because hey, our little peepees get big sometimes.  

but sure, I have no problems with touching the face of god or learning the mechanisms of god; understanding takes nothing away from wondering at the beauty of creation.  once you lose the ability to wonder, then I believe you truly are an atheist, and that's every bit as blinkered as calling yourself a christian.  acknowledging a thankfulness for a sense of beauty and wonder and love is universal even if mankind does not agree on the religious nomenclature.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: N on May 05, 2010, 09:16:11 PM
Am I the only one here who feels that a good part of this debate is being fed by misinterpretation?

Seems  the cause of it is people bitching about semantics and word usage which is leading them away from the point of the post: Religion, or god is just the terms some people use to describe what science is describing, but in a different way.   Sure some of it is justified through spirituality and mysticism but it’s still just man’s attempt to describe the same system of which he’s a part.


I could easily be mistaken, but it works for my family, and community and makes us a little bit stronger as a whole, fine.

I’m expecting for what almost feels like straw man arguments bitching about my poor choice of terminology rather than the point I’m trying to make.


I’ve given you the fuel, it’d be silly not to expect you light the match.   
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on May 05, 2010, 09:21:00 PM
I don't believe it is singularly fear and insecurity based. Even when afraid, or disgusted, we still want to go have a look. Man has an insatiable need to fill the gaps in knowing with something - and anything is better than nothing. Hence, myths and superstitions all the way up to our bespectacled graybeards hunched variously over microscopes and data entries for lifetimes. These dedicated graybeard types were in the past and still are those lifelong ovates and bards, monks, priests, ascetic hermits or rabbis.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: hoodwink on May 05, 2010, 09:25:05 PM
Am I the only one here who feels that a good part of this debate is being fed by misinterpretation?

Seems  the cause of it is people bitching about semantics and word usage which is leading them away from the point of the post: Religion, or god is just the terms some people use to describe what science is describing, but in a different way.   Sure some of it is justified through spirituality and mysticism but it’s still just man’s attempt to describe the same system of which he’s a part.  

"God" or whatever you want to call him is a semantic issue at its core. and the word choice used in the original post (whether intentionally or otherwise) suggests an end goal of offering a word as a catalyst for the whole of nature; I don't particularly care what word you choose. But I'm quite certain that many creationists have for years enumerated evolution as god's tool, and philosophy and mathematics as god's language among their strongest pro-God points.  so yes, I'd say the word choice is quite important to the discussion.  I take umbrage with any tool men use to make men bigger than we are.  
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 06, 2010, 06:27:26 AM
Quote from: AnHero
So ignoring the fact that he used the very loaded word "God", most of this thread didn't need to happen.

Is there any disagreement with what he's actually saying? Or were these past 8 pages just confusion about nomenclature, as Thamuz said?
The divergence in this thread from Conservationist's original post started when God defenders altered the debate.  There is no confusion over nomenclature.  As I said before, there have been around 4 different types of God being defended in this thread.  If you re-read the thread paying attention to which God is being addressed at which time, you will see very little confusion.  There have also been various tangents, like my discussion with Erosion, but all the godless heathens in this thread have at some point addressed the initial post.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Jim Necroslaughter on May 06, 2010, 07:36:52 AM
That's because the logical onus of proof isn't on non-existence.

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?

perhaps only being astrally sodomized by The Almighty, himself, will compel these unbelievers to take to their knees and bow before that which man cannot perceive!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 06, 2010, 08:07:26 AM
How about my concept of Reality as being God, as Reality fulfills all standard requisites of godhood (omnipotence, omniscience, all creation and destruction, all forces, the fact of the existence of everything as well as the actual existence of everything)?

Is God just matter?(and dark matter and energy). Sure, it is very poetic to call the universe or everything  "God", but it is a waste of time to keep using the term if you actually don't believe that God exists. Or like some people, justifying its existence as a cultural mechanism for the populace.

It is truly despicable to hear the common complains against God from liberals who see Him as a tyrant, or as a justification of hierarchy... but certainly, for practical uses, I don't see why people need God just to have a "reverent" approach to Reality. In that case, even though when it stills theologically distinct, and just for this emotional approach, it would be better to keep Him along with Thor, Zeus and Quetzalcoatl, with the same degree of respect and credibility.

We're not always in this mindset.  At the moment, we're thinking about meta-existence, whereas we're usually thinking solely about existence.  At these times, I find that certain occasions are made easier by calling up values and virtues in the guises of Gods and Heroes of myth.  Other occasions, when I'm in a slightly different frame of mind, require a view of God as simply being, without being anthropomorphic.  During this discussion, and in this mindset, God need not even exist.  His impact on my life, and on the lives of those around me, though, still exists.

For me, it's the difference between having a desk covered in loose papers (no God) and having a filing system in which to store everything (God).
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: druidakoda on May 06, 2010, 09:08:07 AM

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?
Your question is not answerable.

This is all that was needed, the rest is "semantics and word games".

Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: nous on May 06, 2010, 11:48:07 AM

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?
Your question is not answerable.

This is all that was needed, the rest is "semantics and word games".

Question was good. Here are some proofs:
Ontological proof (which, in my humble opinion, is the best one, because it is one that any human being with reasonable intelligence can understand if he makes an effort)
Cosmological proof
Teleological proof
Experimental/Mystical proof
Miracles

You can read about these proofs in Frithjof Schuon's book "Logic and Transcendence". The chapter "Concerning Proofs of God" is a rich treasure for people in search of answers. For those who look for excuses...not so much.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 06, 2010, 12:07:04 PM

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?
Your question is not answerable.

This is all that was needed, the rest is "semantics and word games".

Question was good. Here are some proofs:
Ontological proof (which, in my humble opinion, is the best one, because it is one that any human being with reasonable intelligence can understand if he makes an effort)
Cosmological proof
Teleological proof
Experimental/Mystical proof
Miracles

You can read about these proofs in Frithjof Schuon's book "Logic and Transcendence". The chapter "Concerning Proofs of God" is a rich treasure for people in search of answers. For those who look for excuses...not so much.
Ontological argument - see Immanual Kant
Cosmological argument - begs the question
Teleological argument - order can arise from chaos (see astrophysics and evolutionary biology)
Experimental/Mystical proof - Not sure what you mean, mind elaborating?
Miracles - What miracles?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: nous on May 06, 2010, 01:10:34 PM
I recommended that particular chapter in that particular book with a reason.

The reason being that in my experience, debating such serious questions in an atmosphere of denial or hostility is a waste of time for all participants.

By the by, I want to humbly express my fundamental agreement with the "thread title statement", and ask everyone to consider that while "the white-bearded sages" can explain the proper place of natural science in the whole of Reality-Knowledge, modern natural scientists are well-defined as people who fail at this task. So, just by evaluating the outcome of the respective worldviews, I am naturally inclined to look for answers in the doctrines of the old sages.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 06, 2010, 01:25:44 PM
Quote from: nous
I recommended that particular chapter in that particular book with a reason.

The reason being that in my experience, debating such serious questions in an atmosphere of denial or hostility is a waste of time for all participants.
In other words, your arguments only seem convincing if you've already accepted the conclusions.

There is neither an atmosphere of denial nor hostility here.  Those arguing against the existence of god are in the minority.  The only hostility I've seen has been minor and mostly of a joking/benign nature.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: reasonable on May 07, 2010, 04:38:38 AM
Cosmological argument - begs the question

Would you mind explaining how it's question-begging? I'm not disagreeing with you or anything; I'm genuinely interested because I've seen objections to the argument but none to the effect that it begs the question.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 07, 2010, 06:08:27 AM
Cosmological argument - begs the question

Would you mind explaining how it's question-begging? I'm not disagreeing with you or anything; I'm genuinely interested because I've seen objections to the argument but none to the effect that it begs the question.
Sure.  Thankfully, someone else has already done the work for me:
Quote from: some guy named Austin Cline
Other examples [of begging the question] aren’t quite so easy to spot because instead of assuming the conclusion, they are assuming a related but equally controversial premise to prove what is at question. For example:
8. The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God.

Example #8 assumes (begs the question) two things: first, that the universe does indeed have a beginning and second, that all things that have a beginning have a cause. Both of these assumptions are at least as questionable as the point at hand: whether or not there is a god.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: anonymous22 on May 07, 2010, 09:22:42 AM
Has anyone watched this debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston?  It is from the 1950s and is way better than any of the "debates" done today on the subject with people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: reasonable on May 08, 2010, 04:33:12 AM
Cosmological argument - begs the question

Would you mind explaining how it's question-begging? I'm not disagreeing with you or anything; I'm genuinely interested because I've seen objections to the argument but none to the effect that it begs the question.
Sure.  Thankfully, someone else has already done the work for me:
Quote from: some guy named Austin Cline
Other examples [of begging the question] aren’t quite so easy to spot because instead of assuming the conclusion, they are assuming a related but equally controversial premise to prove what is at question. For example:
8. The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God.

Example #8 assumes (begs the question) two things: first, that the universe does indeed have a beginning and second, that all things that have a beginning have a cause. Both of these assumptions are at least as questionable as the point at hand: whether or not there is a god.

I see, so it's not formally question-begging. I see what's meant there, but I've never seen the concept of begging the question used in that way.

I take issue with the claim that the assumption that all things have a beginning have a cause is at least as questionable as the conclusion of the argument. Isn't the assumption well-supported inductively? I've never seen any clear cases of uncaused events, but I've seen plenty of cases of caused events. It seems far more plausible to me than the claim that God exists.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 08, 2010, 05:00:36 AM
I believe the point is that the cause is called God, regardless of the nature of God.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: reasonable on May 08, 2010, 05:17:48 AM
I don't understand your point. Please clarify.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 08, 2010, 08:35:16 AM
Quote from: Ginnungafap
I see, so it's not formally question-begging. I see what's meant there, but I've never seen the concept of begging the question used in that way.
Correct, in the form presented it is not a formal example of question-begging.  However, it should be noted that the argument can be reworded such that it is a formal begging of the question.  This occurs when a specific God is defined in advanced (usually the Christian god) to give it the properties necessary to demostrate it exists.  So for example:
The God of Christianity is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and eternal.  Everything that has a beginning has a cause.  The universe had a beginning.  The universe must have been created by something that has no cause.  Therefore, God must exist to have created the universe because he is eternal.
Quote
I take issue with the claim that the assumption that all things have a beginning have a cause is at least as questionable as the conclusion of the argument. Isn't the assumption well-supported inductively? I've never seen any clear cases of uncaused events, but I've seen plenty of cases of caused events. It seems far more plausible to me than the claim that God exists.
I would have agreed with you before I began studying quantum physics.  Within quantum fields, uncaused events "appear" to happen all the time.  Whether or not these events are actually uncaused is obviously debatable.  Never the less, it certainly raises serious questions about our understanding of causality.

If you are already familiar with all of that, and would like to argue that the existence of God is still less plausible than the claim that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then I could respond two ways:
1.  They are not equally questionable, but the assumption is still in question and therefore the argument still performs informal question-begging.
2.  Admit I'm simply digging my own grave and should have conceded earlier that a different objection should have been used.
Naturally, I'll go with #1.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on May 09, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
Erosion's on the right track re my hasty negation, and radiant responded far better than I could have hoped.
nigga I aim to please

Quote
I don't have the time to argue this bollockery with you people fully - God exists, and nothing is changed, or he doesn't, and nothing is changed.? I prefer to consider God to exist because it ties in nicely with the concept of cosmic consciousness (such as was effectively proven by experiments in the field of Quantum Physics, that two particles having been together at one point will retain a "memory" of each other [more or less, paraphrasing here]).? There is an obvious order to this reality, and (for some reason) my ordered mind recognises similar processes between itself and its exterior.? I call this "God" - it's a good concept, which can be understood at many different levels, depending on the situation in which the concept arises (in everyday life, God is that which is beyond Man; in this discussion, God is reality exterior to my mind [these two different perspectives do not cancel each other out, but, of course, cannot coexist in a healthy mind]).
That's all fine, just know that positing the existence of a "god" will always confuse your understanding of reality. For a god to have real significance, it must in some way lie outside of our world. Otherwise, a god is just a configuration of particles and you mean something other than god -- at this point you are confusing yourself. However, the former case is logically impossible -- there is nothing that exists outside of the world. Anything that exists, exists in our world, including "alternate universes" or thoughts or extradimensional demons or other crap that supposedly exists "outside of our world." But that is somewhat beside the point.

I think your words show the intellectual problems with this belief: you say that God may have different understandings depending on the situation: this implies that the concept itself is vacant of any inherent meaning. You say "God is reality exterior to my mind" -- what the hell is this phrase supposed to mean? First of all, "mind" is merely a more muddled term for "brain;" using "mind" only obfuscates the discussion. If you meant "reality outside of my brain," which I don't think you did, it would mean anything that's not a brain. If you meant outside of the processing power of your brain, whatever you have to say on the subject is doomed to nonsense. Language does not allow us to speak of things outside of our understanding. See Wittgenstein:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

I know I'm not going to win any converts with this, but I think it is pretty clear that a belief in god is untenable from a strictly analytical level.

If I'm not overstepping my boundaries, I think that Cargest may be attempting to point out that thoughts and concepts have as much of an impact on reality, in a round-a-bout manner, as the interaction of physical elements. However, the idea of "everything" easily encompasses thought as well. Hey, isn't using the term everything kind of like using the term God? ABOLISH IT!
Thoughts are also the interaction of physical elements, for they are chemical and electrical reactions in a brain. Thus, they are a part of reality and effect it. That said, while the thought of owning a slave maid who performs fellatio on me every morning might be real, this maid does not actually exist. Just as you might daydream about Norwegian wolves running through the snow and howling at the pagan moon, these are not real wolves. They're creations of your brain. Now, I might be such a weak and infantile indivudual that believing in my slave maids may be necessary for my sanity, that I need to believe in their reality just to function properly, but I think any old schmuck would be perfectly in the right to mock me for this weakness.

And, no, the term "everything" is not like the term "god;" "everything" has an established meaning, while the term "god" does not, as any conversation on the subject will tell you. But nice try, bro!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Antihuman on May 09, 2010, 02:19:57 PM
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

God is an oversimplification, scientific research (once it reaches a level on which I, an outsider of the field, am involved) is little more than nomenclature.  If you get caught up in trying to define a "God" for yourself, or trying to decipher an agency behind experiential phenomena, you're bound to miss the point.

God is a polluted word, and no matter how much you struggle against the meanings attributed to it, it is more limiting than enlightening.

The difference between science and religion exists, but it depends on your perspective.  You can't use these blanket terms and expect to arrive at an accurate delineation of science, religion, or their relationship.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: hoodwink on May 09, 2010, 06:05:50 PM
Has anyone watched this debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston?  It is from the 1950s and is way better than any of the "debates" done today on the subject with people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

just a few idle musings on this as I am by no means qualified to adequately tackle the meat of the debate:

- Russell's comparison of moral distinctions to colors was particularly weak (and hypocritical if you know anything about Russell).
- As with so many academic texts or discussions from the period, the content more or less resolved itself in (or degenerated to) a discussion about Nazi culpability.  For any number of reasons, two Brits arguing morality in the aftermath of near-annihilation at the hands of Hitler by presenting their conqueror as the metric of ultimate evil holds little appeal for me.
- Though the majority of Coplestone's arguments seem like he's chasing his tail, the segment where he Russell attacks him by citing instances of people talking to demons portrayed Coplestone as a particularly stubborn and credulous christian.  Instead of positing that the existence of Satan is (a) essential to the existence of God, (b) a "necessary" antipode to the love of God, and (c) as "real" as God in the biblical sense of reality, he resorted to discrediting people who'd claimed to talk to "demons," and regrettably put himself in the "they're not part of my club" camp.  Russell (erroneously) used Satan and communication with him as an argument against God's existence.  Coplestone immediately went on the defensive.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on May 09, 2010, 06:49:16 PM
That's all fine, just know that positing the existence of a "god" will always confuse your understanding of reality. For a god to have real significance, it must in some way lie outside of our world.

I would say that that which both includes and is everything must be outside of everything, and never would I disagree with this position.

Quote
Otherwise, a god is just a configuration of particles and you mean something other than god -- at this point you are confusing yourself. However, the former case is logically impossible -- there is nothing that exists outside of the world.

Of course there are things which exist outside of the world.  Where is the world, but in a place (God) which includes it?

Quote
Anything that exists, exists in our world, including "alternate universes" or thoughts or extradimensional demons or other crap that supposedly exists "outside of our world." But that is somewhat beside the point.

Relativity (not general or specialised, I mean simple relativity) is incredibly useful here.  Essentially, there are infinite levels to anything, and infinite levels to everything.  Reverse the directions of Achilles and the Tortoise.  Also, read "Goedel Escher Bach" by Douglas R. Hofstadter for some interesting revelations on the nature of infinity, as it applies to everything from Mathematics, through Music, to God, backwards and forwards, and even beyond.

Quote
I think your words show the intellectual problems with this belief: you say that God may have different understandings depending on the situation: this implies that the concept itself is vacant of any inherent meaning.

Two things here.  Firstly, your statement is incorrect - as far as human understanding goes, absolutely everything is subject to perspective, though perspectives may be more or less or similarly though differently informed (PO).  Secondly, I assume that we are all, in some sense, "Nihilists", here - why should there be any inherent meaning to anything?  Surely there is no inherent meaning to anything?  If this is the case, then of course "God" has no meaning.

Quote
You say "God is reality exterior to my mind" -- what the hell is this phrase supposed to mean?

The mind includes the self and the vision of the exterior, while the exterior is independent of the mind.  I thought it was quite a delightfully simple statement.

Quote
First of all, "mind" is merely a more muddled term for "brain;" using "mind" only obfuscates the discussion.

Mind is separate from brain - I've argued this before, successfully, even on this very forum.  I think my general gist is often along the lines of self-conception etc. making mind greater than simple organic blah blah blah.  Generally, in my experience of other people's usage of these terms - both the initiated and the uninitiated - "Mind" is the "scientific" way of saying "soul", so as not to sound at all religious (because religion is stupid, since Science is real.  Duh :p).  The brain is an organ whose processes generate (in a healthy example) an entity known as "mind", which is made up... Consider ants.  Individually, they're fucking retarded.  If you get a handful of ants and drop them next to each other, they'll go off and die.  However, if you have a fully functioning colony, with the same number of (or more) ants, you will, effectively, have an organism, made of many smaller organisms.  The colony has certainly given itself purpose - mainly, self-preservation - and it will use its smaller parts to that goal.  Essentially, the brain is "ants", but the mind is "colony".  The colony is a quantifiable and qualifiable thing, it exists, and is separate from the parts which made it.  The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, etc....  This is a very, very simple version of an incredibly complex and interesting analogy - once again, read Hofstadter's book.

Quote
)If you meant "reality outside of my brain," which I don't think you did, it would mean anything that's not a brain. If you meant outside of the processing power of your brain, whatever you have to say on the subject is doomed to nonsense. Language does not allow us to speak of things outside of our understanding. See Wittgenstein:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

I've always seen Wittgenstein as being simple arguments against debating useless topics uselessly, which is why I generally stay out of these pointless discussions, unless it's two thirty in the morning and I have work in five hours but am so disturbingly bored and unable to sleep that I have to ramble on about God to people who have fundamentally different understandings of key words and concepts.

Quote
I know I'm not going to win any converts with this, but I think it is pretty clear that a belief in god is untenable from a strictly analytical level.

Evidently not, given my responses :)

Quote
If I'm not overstepping my boundaries, I think that Cargest may be attempting to point out that thoughts and concepts have as much of an impact on reality, in a round-a-bout manner, as the interaction of physical elements. However, the idea of "everything" easily encompasses thought as well. Hey, isn't using the term everything kind of like using the term God? ABOLISH IT!
Thoughts are also the interaction of physical elements, for they are chemical and electrical reactions in a brain. Thus, they are a part of reality and effect it. That said, while the thought of owning a slave maid who performs fellatio on me every morning might be real, this maid does not actually exist. Just as you might daydream about Norwegian wolves running through the snow and howling at the pagan moon, these are not real wolves. They're creations of your brain. Now, I might be such a weak and infantile indivudual that believing in my slave maids may be necessary for my sanity, that I need to believe in their reality just to function properly, but I think any old schmuck would be perfectly in the right to mock me for this weakness.

And, no, the term "everything" is not like the term "god;" "everything" has an established meaning, while the term "god" does not, as any conversation on the subject will tell you. But nice try, bro!

The most constructive thing to be doing right now then, rather than arguing about the existence or non-existence of a being, entity, state, or simple factor of existence, called "God", would be to be discovering and refining a general and overarching concept and understanding of what "God" can and cannot mean, and, from that, what it should mean to us.

But, for some reason, you've chosen, quite logically, not to believe in anything called "God", while I have chosen, quite logically, to believe in such a thing without question (primarily because, as stated before, it is pointless for me to question something which simply is, as far as my understanding allows).
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on May 09, 2010, 09:36:16 PM
Someone blogged this The split between religion and science is over (http://www.amerika.org/2010/science/the-split-between-religion-and-science-is-over/).
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: AnHero on May 10, 2010, 10:13:41 AM
I know I'm not going to win any converts with this, but I think it is pretty clear that a belief in god is untenable from a strictly analytical level.

Well there's your problem!

Society can't function if it thinks on a strictly analytical level - I don't think an individual can either. Groups of people cannot be rational, if even the beliefs they are provided with are.

I'm not specifically supporting god with this, just something to remember.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 10, 2010, 02:37:12 PM
Someone blogged this The split between religion and science is over (http://www.amerika.org/2010/science/the-split-between-religion-and-science-is-over/).
I simply had to announce my disapproval of that blog.  I expect better from Amerika.org.  Brett Stevens is clearly the brains of that operation.  He has the most lucidity, clarity, and insight.  That blog, on the other hand, is a mix of gibberish, unfounded assertion, and truism.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Somnambulist on May 11, 2010, 08:35:00 AM
Someone blogged this The split between religion and science is over (http://www.amerika.org/2010/science/the-split-between-religion-and-science-is-over/).

I approve of this!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: JewishPhysics on May 11, 2010, 09:32:02 AM
Someone blogged this The split between religion and science is over (http://www.amerika.org/2010/science/the-split-between-religion-and-science-is-over/).
I approve of this!
Then the long legged scissor man is going to cut off your thumbs:
(http://www.elfwood.com/art/l/o/loneanimator/scissorman.jpg)
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Somnambulist on May 11, 2010, 09:56:51 AM
haha!  hey, just so you know, it's nothing personal - I like the cut of your jib!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on August 17, 2010, 06:35:31 PM
Here we go again with tendencies.

Religion: composite (gain) -> particulars (loss), top down
Science: particulars (gain) -> composite (loss), bottom up
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on August 17, 2010, 08:05:09 PM
This would suggest that extroverts are natural scientists, whereas introverts are natural theologists, and both could be philosophers.  Then again, it's highly likely that certain roles to which certain types are suited are generally performed by other types who are less suited to their roles.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on August 17, 2010, 09:20:47 PM
Replace religion with traditional and science with modern. The former terms are too specific.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: nether on August 18, 2010, 07:44:25 AM
Replace religion with traditional and science with modern. The former terms are too specific.

Too specific?  I find them just as vague as the alternatives you posed.

Where does 'tradition' start/ end?  What is 'modern'?

I think your chart (for lack of better descriptor) above is thoughtful and accurate.  But, make anything vague enough and it will have the appearance of being universally applicable.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Caffeine on August 18, 2010, 03:38:21 PM
This would suggest that extroverts are natural scientists, whereas introverts are natural theologists, and both could be philosophers.  Then again, it's highly likely that certain roles to which certain types are suited are generally performed by other types who are less suited to their roles.

You have eN, iN, Ti, Te, J, and P to account for as well.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Jim Necroslaughter on August 21, 2010, 03:38:52 PM
Replace religion with traditional and science with modern. The former terms are too specific.

Too specific?  I find them just as vague as the alternatives you posed.

Where does 'tradition' start/ end?  What is 'modern'?

I think your chart (for lack of better descriptor) above is thoughtful and accurate.  But, make anything vague enough and it will have the appearance of being universally applicable.

He doesn't mean 'specific' as in 'clear,' he means it as in 'narrow.'  So it may be vague, but you're misunderstanding him.  Perhaps learning about 'tradition' VS. 'modern' all by yourself could be a really fun experience.  Then you can answer your own question.  Have a good one!
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: nether on August 23, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
He doesn't mean 'specific' as in 'clear,' he means it as in 'narrow.'  So it may be vague, but you're misunderstanding him.  Perhaps learning about 'tradition' VS. 'modern' all by yourself could be a really fun experience.  Then you can answer your own question.  Have a good one!

Revised:

Traditional: composite (gain) -> particulars (loss), top down
Modern: particulars (gain) -> composite (loss), bottom up

Perhaps I was too quick to criticize, but I found it interesting and thought it merited some discussion which might have begun with an explanation.  Having looked at it myself, though, it makes perfect sense.

'Modern' is of the moment (thus pertinent), but often irrelevant in the grand scheme.  'Tradition' is established (thus valid), but often general.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on August 24, 2010, 12:08:40 PM
Good stuff.

See also deconstruction (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php?topic=8785.0) and a constructivist (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/london_new_right_bowden_on_evola/).
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: nether on August 24, 2010, 08:43:09 PM
Deconstruction provides in-depth analysis, but it often misses (or intentionally overlooks/ misconstrues) the matter at hand.
 
Through constructivism we find value, but we run the risk of valuing the wrong things.

EDIT:  That lecture on Evola is excellent.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: zebra bodine on August 30, 2010, 03:45:12 PM
servant to things that don't exist because of an underlying fear of purposelessness.

After reading all this, I honestly found this the most sensible thing that was said.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Jim Necroslaughter on August 30, 2010, 04:20:11 PM
servant to things that don't exist because of an underlying fear of purposelessness.

strawman
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: wacked666 on September 01, 2010, 08:50:11 AM
the connection between spirit and science is narrowing, so assume there is no spirit because science cannot prove it yet to me is small minded.
the chinese had mapped the acupuncture points of the body 3000 years before science proved the exact same thing. watch "what the bleep do we know" it's a great movie. they explain about quantum physics, and it seems to reach into this feild more than any other science that i know of..
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on November 20, 2010, 07:31:19 PM
The deconstruction side looks for something tangible that it can isolate and categorize with a set of metrics. I would say this is what limits deconstruction. But the constructivist side can bridge the gap by giving us relationships between entities and a better sense of scope.

It is like the difference between expertise gotten from a butterfly stored in a glass container when it isn't under a microscope and a survey of a meadow surrounded by forest with all its living things as a whole ecosystem. Some of the living things are butterflies that move pollen around and serve as food for certain birds.

The deconstruction side may remain unaware of, and indeed deny, the meadow, pollen, or birds unless the isolated butterfly itself had measurable clues about these things on its body.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: Cargést on November 21, 2010, 07:11:21 AM
"Always be aware of the macrocosm"?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on January 03, 2011, 06:48:36 PM
It appears science is in serious trouble. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

As some thought from antiquity would have it, declension goes from Being to being and finally to nothingness as starlight from a sun past the planets and out into cold deep space, or water from a wellspring to delta to deep sea. Science still has no handle on this ancient understanding save for perhaps the Second Law of Thermodynamics if it were applicable to all existence.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on July 26, 2012, 09:14:48 PM
Metaphysics as the foundation of science, philosophy as an exact method to discover this foundation: These are central themes in the Kant-Friesian philosophy which, at the beginning of the 20th century, Leonard Nelson, using the methods of mathematical axiomatics, further developed into interdisciplinary research programmes. Nelson carried out this research programme in his ethics but his untimely death prevented a systematic presentation of his natural philosophy and his doctrine of method.

http://www.friesian.com/nelson.htm
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: BillHopkins on July 27, 2012, 09:54:30 PM
It appears science is in serious trouble. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

As some thought from antiquity would have it, declension goes from Being to being and finally to nothingness as starlight from a sun past the planets and out into cold deep space, or water from a wellspring to delta to deep sea. Science still has no handle on this ancient understanding save for perhaps the Second Law of Thermodynamics if it were applicable to all existence.

This statement is rediculous. Science has as much of a handle on this 'ancient understanding' as you do. I.e. it is a hypothesis. It may or may not be true (you can't know for sure). However it is one that science cannot test, because science is, low and behold, empirical and you can't observe Being going to being and fanally to nothingness, as that would include the observer.

So you're basically saying something like: "Ha! suck shit science, you can't test something that can't be tested! Got you there!". As far as *entertaining the proposition* "Being to being and finally to nothingness as starlight from a sun past the planets and out into cold deep space, or water from a wellspring to delta to deep sea", science can entertain it, as a thought, just as well as you can. It just can't prove it or disprove it due to the nature of its own methodology. But like I said, you can't either, so please get down of your high horse, to be crude.

It is an empty proposition, valuable for its artistic/poetic content, at most.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on April 28, 2013, 11:46:22 AM
The world we see is an illusion, albeit a highly persistent one. We have gradually got used to the idea that nature’s true reality is one of uncertain quantum fields; that what we see is not necessarily what is. Dark matter is a profound extension of this concept. It appears that the majority of matter in the universe has been hidden from us. That puts physicists and the general public alike in an uneasy place. Physicists worry that they can’t point to an unequivocal confirmed prediction or a positive detection of the stuff itself. The wider audience finds it hard to accept something that is necessarily so shadowy and elusive. The situation, in fact, bears an ominous resemblance to the aether controversy of more than a century ago.

http://www.deathmetal.org/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=8809.165;last_msg=77769

Nothing can be properly conclusive until we understand everything as if omniscient which isn't going to happen because of our acute human limitations.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: crow on April 28, 2013, 11:52:24 AM
Maybe these acute human limitations are not acute, and not limitations, at all.
What if they are what they are, in order to enable us to live in a highly unlikely medium.
I mean, what would life be like if we were able to see, smell, touch and hear charged particles, x-rays, and antimatter?
Perhaps the desire to understand everything is a form of insanity.
What if - and I realize this is a bizarre concept - we were actually perfectly designed to simply live in this abundant and mysterious medium, without necessarily having to understand it all, and how it works?
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on April 28, 2013, 03:14:30 PM
Our optical limitations, with the eyes as passive sensors from an engineering design standpoint, can be attributed partly to the spectral type of our local star. The rest is natural selection optimizing one of our senses along with the wavelength to which it is best attuned to spotting predators, food, or quality mates within what for us is the visible light range.

Around another star perhaps, our vision may have ended up a bit more into the infrared or ultraviolet ranges. Things like terrestrial atmospheric pressure tuned our auditory senses into a specific range. But also, how much incoming data can our brains parse into helpful information before turning into detrimental overload? Neurology is probably the best reason for even having such a tightly restricted range.

So yes, we have evolutionary results from natural history but no indication of any deliberate underlying reasons for them. The results are all incidental necessities with all of the other results filtered out as unfit or at least less fit for competition within the given environment.
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: crow on April 28, 2013, 05:14:26 PM
I suppose that religion and science are generally not very different from each other, in that both are obsessed with the desire to understand. They just go about it in different ways.
Humans seem very prone to seek understanding, even when history shows, again and again, that understanding is a double-edged sword.
And what is understanding, anyway? The shuffling of observations into something that appears to make more sense than it did before the shuffling?
How does anyone actually know when understanding has been reached, or whether it is just an intermediate stage along the way?
I don't really care, any more, about understanding anything, preferring to stand-under, and observe from a point of humility, the mystery above.
 
Title: Re: The split between religion and science does not exist
Post by: scourge on April 28, 2013, 07:12:49 PM
Throw out the unnecessary methodological tautology and we have the thread's thesis in a nutshell. But what's more is the impossibility for us to determine which side is going to take us to that forever distant ultimate conclusion. Last, quantitative conclusions to these ends are unreachable in the same way as our ages old questing for first cause along the infinite regress of reasons.