I'm a scientist and an Atheist. I'm still looking for something that would make believe in the existence of a higher power. I always try to differentiate between Spirituality and Religion. Spirituality is about asking the right question and learn to accept what is not acceptable. Religion is about finding answers.Some very religious people are not spiritual people in my opinion. Spirituality is a consciousness quality that goes beyond any particular religion.
Either something interacts with the cosmos, and can be measured, or its not real in any meaningful way. Thats all there is to it. Replace God with ESP, ghosts, psychokinesis, tachyon particles, homeopathic medicines, feng shui, chi, the Loch Ness monster, and it pretty much works out the same way. Either it can be measured via its interaction with the physical world, or it doesn't exist and you can't possibly know anything about it, because the only things you can have real knowledge about are the ones that you have physically interacted with via your senses, or abstract concepts that don't have an independent reality.If you want to redefine physics as God, the big bang as God, the quantum foam as God, be my guest, but thats not what most people mean when they say God. When they say God, they are talking about an intelligence that has only been observed via anecdotal reports and the conviction of people who "feel something".Love, that you can also measure. Love you can define by its symptoms, changes in behavior and brain chemistry. Religiosity you can define by its symptoms as well. But would anyone confuse love with a physical entity? No. Its a condition; a mental state. Do you really want to say that God is just a state of mind? If so, I can live with that, because then its a measurable, real phenomena.
@afreyt Item 1: "I suffer less if I believe, even if what I believe is even less tangible than the other illusions." A: No, its more like "If all is illusionary and impermanent, and subject to doubt, then learn to embrace illusions and impermanence and operate with faith that what you see and feel is real while you realize that it is not." Its kind of like watching a magic show. I know the guy is tricking me with something simple, but I can enjoy the artistry of the deception. I can believe and not believe in magic at the same time and that that is ok. Consistency is overrated. Item 2: "I would ask why you are suffering in the absence of belief in the existence of God in the first place." A: As the Buddhist doctrine goes "Life is suffering." I've heard it better put as "life involves friction." Dukha has a number of different meanings that just don't translate into modern English well. In keeping with the wheel image of Buddhism, I've heard it can relate to a potters wheel that sticks occasionally. It is the original "squeaky wheel." A wheel cannot turn without a hub, the hub is an illusion, turning is an illusion, suffering is an illusion, but it is something we experience daily. So we operate as if there is a hub, as if the wheel is turning, and as if we suffer. Medieval Western philosophy has a similar image of "De Casibus" or the wheel of fortune. Sometimes you ride the wheel up, sometimes you ride it down. It was suggested by many back then that peace was found at the center of the wheel away from its edge. I look at "God" as the center of that wheel. God is the ultimate in being and non being. God both is and not-is. God is neither is nor not-is. My particular cultural tradition calls God "Yahweh/Allah," and asserts that all proceeds from God in steady order from this "center." But to pharaphrase the Tao Te Ching, "the God that can be named is not the eternal God." We use labels and names and traditions to help us grasp the ungraspable God. The problem comes about is when we believe that our symbol (called the signifier) of God actually IS God (called the signified).
Well, it reminds me of the parable of the wall. The monk caught one of his students leaning on the wall and said, 'You're going to have a hard time carrying that wall with you throughout your life" and thus the student learned to stand up straight.Its of course up to each what they wish to carry with them to lean on.
afreyt: "And the function of the universe is clearly to create everything, and then judge the now extant sinners from the extant saints and shuffle them off to their eternal rewards! Am I right?"I'm not sure what that has to do with the idea of God... at all...And, just so we're all clear, I'm not a Christian at all, but I believe in God.
I see so many people say "there is no scientific evidence that God exists". Well, I'd remind you all that science can only disprove, not prove anything (or do we really live in a geocentric solar system?). So, find me scientific evidence that God does not exist and I will start to take that the opposing request more seriously.
You can redefine God however you want, thats just moving the problem of showing it exists around. Yes, some things that are called God are real, but they aren't what I or others would consider God. That was my point. You want to call the universe God, be my guest. Claiming it has a purpose? Well, purposes are something we attribute to things. Be my guest. I don't think the Universe cares.
Its not that science can't prove. NOONE can prove. Its got nothing to do with science. Science is a process of producing better and better theories to explain reality.But, after many years of looking for evidence for dozens of competing God hypotheses, noone has found anything that suggests they are more accurate than the null hypothesis. Yes, one can always say we haven't looked hard enough, but for something thats supposed to be real, in the solid as the ground under our feet sort of way, he sure is playing hard to get. You provide evidence to support your hypothesis, we'll be happy to try to find a better hypothesis that fits your data. Right now, there is no data. So, a sane person would say, there is no reason to believe.But honestly, why do you have to challenge us? Shouldn't your belief be enough? Are you so weak in faith you want us to work to prove you wrong? Or are you just going to take our failure to bolster your weak conviction?
Collins is ridiculous!Maybe he never saw that cool atheist video with Seth Green being touted as a model of atheistic morals!Maybe ... he'd see the light if he spent more time on digg and youtube engaging with all the 18 year old atheists who hate their parents and just got home after ditching sixth period and doing a bong hit so they could be first to post a great comment on digg for the latest post on why they hate God.
digg has a lot of noobs who think that they're "smart" and "geeks" because they have IT degrees.Oh wait, my bad guys, I just checked my windows settings and the the control panel told me God isn't real. Digg noobs FTW!
I don't know what's worse - a bigoted scientist (if that's what you claim to be, RationalFacts) or a bigoted theist. You're criticism is flawed due to your ignorance. I'm sorry to say that you aren't the only Dawkins 'fan' to fall foul to this. Why do you presume that all theists are religious? I am a computer scientist, and have long been fascinated by the workings of the cosmos, and of life itself. I doubt that there is a scientist out there who isn't. I also believe in a God.I am admittedly Cultural Christian. As are each of us who have been brought up in the Western Democracies. If there is a moral code to live by, Christianity seems like a pretty good one to me. It has positively (in my opinion) influenced our civilisation through politics and law.I believe that we as humans should always look for answers. It would be magnificent if we could find the answers to the great philosophical questions, that our human brains have been puzzling over since our ascendancy as a species.We still struggle over them now, but all in this field do not and SHOULD not cease to ask them.I find it incredibly insulting to have a scientist pour scorn on 'belief', when all that scientific theists (and I suspect most theists) are doing, is choosing to answer the widely felt infinity dilemma, through offering infinity as the only logical answer.Does once in infinity make mathematical sense? Does 100 billion in infinity make any more sense for that matter? Ok, so perhaps you are a supporter of Big Rip or other similar theory, and you don't therefore believe in infinity because we are all going to be ripped apart into nothingness a few hundred billion years from now anyway....Problem. That's the once in infinity dilemma gain. If you don't believe in an infinite universe, but acknowledge that the maths is nonsense, that as far as I can see requires a finite or infinite creative force to have kick started the ball game. And if that creator was finite, then I argue that it is acceptably rational to suppose that there was a creative force behind that creative force also. Infinity to me is logical. Infinity to me is God/The Creator (or whatever!). Religion has no relevance at all!!Also, you purport to be as much of an expert on religion as you are science, when in actual fact your understanding seems to be limited to the Old Testament or Torah. Not all religions follow the Old Testament. And before you slate Christianity, believe in him or not, not once in the bible does Jesus Christ claim that the heavens were built in 6 days, or that Dinosaurs never existed!! All he did was preach about love and respect.....The guy was murdered for it. Not all religious people want science to be wrong! Not all of us who believe in the logic of a creator is religious either!!
khebabApr 5, 2007
I'm a scientist and an Atheist. I'm still looking for something that would make believe in the existence of a higher power. I always try to differentiate between Spirituality and Religion. Spirituality is about asking the right question and learn to accept what is not acceptable. Religion is about finding answers.Some very religious people are not spiritual people in my opinion. Spirituality is a consciousness quality that goes beyond any particular religion.
afreytApr 5, 2007
Either something interacts with the cosmos, and can be measured, or its not real in any meaningful way. Thats all there is to it. Replace God with ESP, ghosts, psychokinesis, tachyon particles, homeopathic medicines, feng shui, chi, the Loch Ness monster, and it pretty much works out the same way. Either it can be measured via its interaction with the physical world, or it doesn't exist and you can't possibly know anything about it, because the only things you can have real knowledge about are the ones that you have physically interacted with via your senses, or abstract concepts that don't have an independent reality.If you want to redefine physics as God, the big bang as God, the quantum foam as God, be my guest, but thats not what most people mean when they say God. When they say God, they are talking about an intelligence that has only been observed via anecdotal reports and the conviction of people who "feel something".Love, that you can also measure. Love you can define by its symptoms, changes in behavior and brain chemistry. Religiosity you can define by its symptoms as well. But would anyone confuse love with a physical entity? No. Its a condition; a mental state. Do you really want to say that God is just a state of mind? If so, I can live with that, because then its a measurable, real phenomena.
loquaxApr 6, 2007
@afreyt Item 1: "I suffer less if I believe, even if what I believe is even less tangible than the other illusions." A: No, its more like "If all is illusionary and impermanent, and subject to doubt, then learn to embrace illusions and impermanence and operate with faith that what you see and feel is real while you realize that it is not." Its kind of like watching a magic show. I know the guy is tricking me with something simple, but I can enjoy the artistry of the deception. I can believe and not believe in magic at the same time and that that is ok. Consistency is overrated. Item 2: "I would ask why you are suffering in the absence of belief in the existence of God in the first place." A: As the Buddhist doctrine goes "Life is suffering." I've heard it better put as "life involves friction." Dukha has a number of different meanings that just don't translate into modern English well. In keeping with the wheel image of Buddhism, I've heard it can relate to a potters wheel that sticks occasionally. It is the original "squeaky wheel." A wheel cannot turn without a hub, the hub is an illusion, turning is an illusion, suffering is an illusion, but it is something we experience daily. So we operate as if there is a hub, as if the wheel is turning, and as if we suffer. Medieval Western philosophy has a similar image of "De Casibus" or the wheel of fortune. Sometimes you ride the wheel up, sometimes you ride it down. It was suggested by many back then that peace was found at the center of the wheel away from its edge. I look at "God" as the center of that wheel. God is the ultimate in being and non being. God both is and not-is. God is neither is nor not-is. My particular cultural tradition calls God "Yahweh/Allah," and asserts that all proceeds from God in steady order from this "center." But to pharaphrase the Tao Te Ching, "the God that can be named is not the eternal God." We use labels and names and traditions to help us grasp the ungraspable God. The problem comes about is when we believe that our symbol (called the signifier) of God actually IS God (called the signified).
afreytApr 7, 2007
Well, it reminds me of the parable of the wall. The monk caught one of his students leaning on the wall and said, 'You're going to have a hard time carrying that wall with you throughout your life" and thus the student learned to stand up straight.Its of course up to each what they wish to carry with them to lean on.
razortongue9000Apr 8, 2007
afreyt: "And the function of the universe is clearly to create everything, and then judge the now extant sinners from the extant saints and shuffle them off to their eternal rewards! Am I right?"I'm not sure what that has to do with the idea of God... at all...And, just so we're all clear, I'm not a Christian at all, but I believe in God.
wahoo06Apr 9, 2007
I see so many people say "there is no scientific evidence that God exists". Well, I'd remind you all that science can only disprove, not prove anything (or do we really live in a geocentric solar system?). So, find me scientific evidence that God does not exist and I will start to take that the opposing request more seriously.
afreytApr 9, 2007
You can redefine God however you want, thats just moving the problem of showing it exists around. Yes, some things that are called God are real, but they aren't what I or others would consider God. That was my point. You want to call the universe God, be my guest. Claiming it has a purpose? Well, purposes are something we attribute to things. Be my guest. I don't think the Universe cares.
afreytApr 9, 2007
Its not that science can't prove. NOONE can prove. Its got nothing to do with science. Science is a process of producing better and better theories to explain reality.But, after many years of looking for evidence for dozens of competing God hypotheses, noone has found anything that suggests they are more accurate than the null hypothesis. Yes, one can always say we haven't looked hard enough, but for something thats supposed to be real, in the solid as the ground under our feet sort of way, he sure is playing hard to get. You provide evidence to support your hypothesis, we'll be happy to try to find a better hypothesis that fits your data. Right now, there is no data. So, a sane person would say, there is no reason to believe.But honestly, why do you have to challenge us? Shouldn't your belief be enough? Are you so weak in faith you want us to work to prove you wrong? Or are you just going to take our failure to bolster your weak conviction?
wgpubsApr 11, 2007
Collins is ridiculous!Maybe he never saw that cool atheist video with Seth Green being touted as a model of atheistic morals!Maybe ... he'd see the light if he spent more time on digg and youtube engaging with all the 18 year old atheists who hate their parents and just got home after ditching sixth period and doing a bong hit so they could be first to post a great comment on digg for the latest post on why they hate God.
dainfernoApr 16, 2007
digg has a lot of noobs who think that they're "smart" and "geeks" because they have IT degrees.
dainfernoApr 16, 2007
digg has a lot of noobs who think that they're "smart" and "geeks" because they have IT degrees.Oh wait, my bad guys, I just checked my windows settings and the the control panel told me God isn't real. Digg noobs FTW!
willburukMar 4, 2008
I don't know what's worse - a bigoted scientist (if that's what you claim to be, RationalFacts) or a bigoted theist. You're criticism is flawed due to your ignorance. I'm sorry to say that you aren't the only Dawkins 'fan' to fall foul to this. Why do you presume that all theists are religious? I am a computer scientist, and have long been fascinated by the workings of the cosmos, and of life itself. I doubt that there is a scientist out there who isn't. I also believe in a God.I am admittedly Cultural Christian. As are each of us who have been brought up in the Western Democracies. If there is a moral code to live by, Christianity seems like a pretty good one to me. It has positively (in my opinion) influenced our civilisation through politics and law.I believe that we as humans should always look for answers. It would be magnificent if we could find the answers to the great philosophical questions, that our human brains have been puzzling over since our ascendancy as a species.We still struggle over them now, but all in this field do not and SHOULD not cease to ask them.I find it incredibly insulting to have a scientist pour scorn on 'belief', when all that scientific theists (and I suspect most theists) are doing, is choosing to answer the widely felt infinity dilemma, through offering infinity as the only logical answer.Does once in infinity make mathematical sense? Does 100 billion in infinity make any more sense for that matter? Ok, so perhaps you are a supporter of Big Rip or other similar theory, and you don't therefore believe in infinity because we are all going to be ripped apart into nothingness a few hundred billion years from now anyway....Problem. That's the once in infinity dilemma gain. If you don't believe in an infinite universe, but acknowledge that the maths is nonsense, that as far as I can see requires a finite or infinite creative force to have kick started the ball game. And if that creator was finite, then I argue that it is acceptably rational to suppose that there was a creative force behind that creative force also. Infinity to me is logical. Infinity to me is God/The Creator (or whatever!). Religion has no relevance at all!!Also, you purport to be as much of an expert on religion as you are science, when in actual fact your understanding seems to be limited to the Old Testament or Torah. Not all religions follow the Old Testament. And before you slate Christianity, believe in him or not, not once in the bible does Jesus Christ claim that the heavens were built in 6 days, or that Dinosaurs never existed!! All he did was preach about love and respect.....The guy was murdered for it. Not all religious people want science to be wrong! Not all of us who believe in the logic of a creator is religious either!!