6.2
Disproving a Personal God with Science
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
That may often be true, perhaps even most of the time, but certainly not always. Some of the most aggressive debates I've ever had were with an acquaintance of mine who had studied evolutionary biology at university. These debates took place many years ago when I still hadn't managed to successfully navigate some of the common conceptual hurdles that typically prevent people from gaining an understanding of how evolution from one species to another is possible. Some of our discussions (which were, as mentioned, often rather heated) lasted for hours. I can't recall conceding any major points at the time, but a lot of what he had to say did indeed sink in over time, and eventually culminated in my becoming somewhat obsessed with learning more about evolution on my own terms.
I think there's a good chance that the catalyst would quite likely have been something else if we'd never had those exchanges, but the fact that I can cite him now as someone who had a real affect on me, speaks to the fact that such things are possible, even in the aforementioned circumstances.
I am sure there are differences between pople.
I, for example, automatically stop listening the moment someone starts yelling or is angry or hostile.
I know of no studies that would show that aggresive communication is the most effective way to bring about positive change in others.
Some people seem to block out much of the anger and hostility and instead listen only to what would be the rational argument.
In fact, being able to block out another's anger like that is an important communication skill.
But in the case of theists, who claim to be role-models for mankind and the bringers of The Solution, who presumably deserve instant respect and trust, surely we shouldn't have to use various communication skills and tricks that are in order when dealing with street thugs, angry bosses and irrational people, but shouldn't have to be relied upon when communicating with the civilized.
I, for example, automatically stop listening the moment someone starts yelling or is angry or hostile.
I know of no studies that would show that aggresive communication is the most effective way to bring about positive change in others.
Some people seem to block out much of the anger and hostility and instead listen only to what would be the rational argument.
In fact, being able to block out another's anger like that is an important communication skill.
But in the case of theists, who claim to be role-models for mankind and the bringers of The Solution, who presumably deserve instant respect and trust, surely we shouldn't have to use various communication skills and tricks that are in order when dealing with street thugs, angry bosses and irrational people, but shouldn't have to be relied upon when communicating with the civilized.
Signal,
Will you stop with the generalisations?
thanks in advance
jan.
Will you stop with the generalisations?
thanks in advance
jan.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I agree with Fr. Barron. We have the wrong mentality when it comes to religion. Many people just find something interesting in the religion that they like, or they like the feel of the church. Most don't take the time to actually truly delve deep and figure out which religion is the church that God himself has established. You can't say you truly looked into it if you were a baptist for 3 years then became a presbyterian for a decade and then converted to buddhism. You can't say they took their religion seriously at least in the beginning. They didn't look deep enough. So, unfortunately, we don't look to where God is calling the world. We don't try and find the true church when we drift from church to church every 5 years.
Yet, our job is to convert others to the truth, to where God is calling the world. Unfortunately, because of the reformation, the truth is harder to find. That doesn't mean we stop trying to lead others to the truth. That doesn't mean God isn't calling the world to the truth. Father Barron was just criticizing the fact that we make it our decision and what we like instead of where God is calling the whole world and what is the truth.
Sorry, unethical to proclaim a supposition as truth and fact. No substance. No proof, no pudding. Preaching.
Can they be rational? Perhaps belief overrides rationality.
But it isn't unethical to claim that science can disprove something it can't even define, and doesn't know where to look for it, or how?SciWriter said:
Religions are a a cultural artefact. Can science explain culture--that is, why do we have cultures, and why do cultures have belief systems? Can science explain the mind/brain paradigm? Can scientists look at an fMRI scan and conclude "no god in here"?
I don't think so. This is why atheists making claims about not only the nonexistence of any gods, and the futility of religions, but the experience of anything spiritual are clearly making BIG suppositions. I suspect because they prefer a particular point of view, a lot like theists do. There is no evidence to support the supposition that people don't have religious or spiritual experiences, and science can't find any, and doesn't even know what to look for.
But having faith in an idea, a supposition, is not science. Therefore the thread title is utterly bogus, a sham, a waste of everyone's time--except for people like me who like a bit of a chuckle.
It is still dishonest to state suppositions for which nothing concrete can be shown as being truth and fact. They can be ethical and preach that it is just a notion.
Same for what is then layered upon.
Same for outright pronouncing that it "could be", for that is not shown either.
Nothing shown. Only a placeholder name remains, and that is nothing at all to work with. It only pretends to stand for something real.
Same for what is then layered upon.
Same for outright pronouncing that it "could be", for that is not shown either.
Nothing shown. Only a placeholder name remains, and that is nothing at all to work with. It only pretends to stand for something real.
And science has nothing concrete to show us that corresponds to empirical data. Science can't tell us where to look, or what to look for.SciWriter said:
There is no scientific fact that disproves the existence of God, or of religious experience.
It's science that has nothing to show, in actuality.
There is nothing to work with since the proclamations of God have nothing behind them. Nothing can be shown. It's an empty discussion, having no substance. All placeholder words are empty. No data to process. A phantasm.
why?
because the tradition can be traced to a geographical tract of land?
if by church you mean ecclesiastical administration, you are not really approaching the issue sadhana
So the absolute truth is so sublime we are constitutionally devoid of any qualities that resonate with it?
Does that make our existence constitutionally separate from the absolute truth?
Because there is more to do be done for the cause of spirituality than god choosing people from a state of total oblivion - eg sadhana
You can't talk about falleness period unless you have some clue what you are fallen from
Then I guess you have a working model for saintliness
even a doctor will tell a sick patient that the path to recovery will involve tremendous hardship and pain. This doesn't mean that healthy life is characterized by hardship and pain
regardless you still are presenting some clue of saintliness, so your previous comments about how there is no way to fathom who is saintly doesn't hold
more clues for your working model ...
This conversation is running around in circles.
You attest that there is no way to isolate or identify a saintly person (who acts as a catalyst fro comprehending spiritual issues or contextualizing scriptural writings) yet you don't hesitate to strike of persons or qualities that you don't consider saintly and talk about how your "fallen" nature somehow prohibits you from clear perception.
What on earth makes you think it would have been otherwise?
Then don't proclaim God.SciWriter said:
But what if it's the nothing between every thought you have? Then there is a nothing with something "behind" it, if you see where I'm going.
Yes, for experiences claimed to be spiritual as being from God, being one with the cosmos, a part of universal consciousness, etc., during introspection, prayer, chanting, and meditation have been measured on Buddhist monks and show that the neurological brain areas go quiet that are associated with with where the body's boundaries are and the identification of the self.
This is but a bonus. The whole question of God remains moot and mute because not a thing can be shown to be known.
So, therefore "God does not exist".SciWriter said:
That's not even the ass end of a scientific theory.
You could find this out by research, or hire a research assistance.
Science doesn't have anything to prove. I already admitted that science cannot disprove every conception of God, but it doesn't have to.
Meanwhile back at square #1:
Because when we dream, we see images, this is enough of a case for myself to consider that there is a possibility the brain can "light" the mind, in that sense. So it isn't that big of a leap to "light in my mind", at least, not for me. But I can see it anytime, I just have to focus, eyes open or closed, on "where" it is.
How would you explain it? Why would you feel the need to explain it?
The argument says theists have to prove their case.spidergoat said:
Because when we dream, we see images, this is enough of a case for myself to consider that there is a possibility the brain can "light" the mind, in that sense. So it isn't that big of a leap to "light in my mind", at least, not for me. But I can see it anytime, I just have to focus, eyes open or closed, on "where" it is.
How would you explain it? Why would you feel the need to explain it?
Last edited: