It would help one to understand brain operation. This is what I mean about externals.
Isn't algebra a middle school or early high school subject?
Disproving a Personal God with Science
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
It would help one to understand brain operation. This is what I mean about externals.
Isn't algebra a middle school or early high school subject?
Yes, it is. It's also a university subject, it's even taught at graduate level.SciWriter said:
Finite presentations of groups and monoids isn't usually taught at high school, I believe (because it's a senior university subject).
I suppose. But you don't personally need to in order to eat, do you? Or watch a movie? Hell, you could probably get away with not knowing anything much about behavioural science, I'd wager.
Last edited:
Existence seems to greatly precede essence in importance for most of what we do in life, but for those times when we want to see the light of why we might see light in our minds.
Someone said in this thread that they can see light when they dream. I would imagine that most people who dream are perceiving a lighted scene, in their unconscious mind.
How does the brain "light up" dream images, and why does it?
How does the brain "light up" dream images, and why does it?
Pushing the envelope a little:
We all dream, right? Some of us can probably recall a few dreams, even years later, which were "vivid", "lucid", or seemed to have an effect on us.
But
And yet, there is research being done by scientists on the phenomenon of dreams. In fact, scientists know the most likely times during sleep that dreams occur, and that "theta" dreams--the vivid, lucid kind--occur during the deepest part of a sleep cycle, when we are almost completely unconscious.
But scientists still can't verify that someone is in fact dreaming, and in particular, they can't tell what they are dreaming about. Like doctors do, they ask their subjects questions and rely on (unreliable) testimony. One such test is of consciousness--even when a patient's eyes are open, a doctor will ask them if they're awake, right?
Therefore science cannot disprove that someone had a religious or spiritual kind of dream. Therefore this thread is based on a misconception or a deliberate misrepresentation.
Transmission ends.
We all dream, right? Some of us can probably recall a few dreams, even years later, which were "vivid", "lucid", or seemed to have an effect on us.
But
so science tells us that reported dreams are not reliable evidence. Science, furthermore, cannot determine what you dream personally. A scientist who recalls a dream can't use this information to form any kind of hypothesis either (apparently). It seems that science faces a dilemma then, we all dream, we can attest to this personally and have no reason to doubt the reports of others who say they have dreams, but science can't do anything with this information.
And yet, there is research being done by scientists on the phenomenon of dreams. In fact, scientists know the most likely times during sleep that dreams occur, and that "theta" dreams--the vivid, lucid kind--occur during the deepest part of a sleep cycle, when we are almost completely unconscious.
But scientists still can't verify that someone is in fact dreaming, and in particular, they can't tell what they are dreaming about. Like doctors do, they ask their subjects questions and rely on (unreliable) testimony. One such test is of consciousness--even when a patient's eyes are open, a doctor will ask them if they're awake, right?
Therefore science cannot disprove that someone had a religious or spiritual kind of dream. Therefore this thread is based on a misconception or a deliberate misrepresentation.
Transmission ends.
It's based on the philosophy of science, not merely my opinion. You suggest that your personal belief is based on your experience, and that's fine with me. But this thread is about using science and the principles of science to disprove a personal God. Your experiences may be valuable to you, but since they cannot be verified by science, much less be related to any external phenomenon, they can be dismissed as not contributing to the scientific support for the personal God hypothesis.
Science does not have to disprove that someone had a religious or spiritually important dream. As I said, there are an infinite number of concepts that science cannot disprove. That doesn't mean it's logical to believe them.
Hypotheses can come from anywhere, it can be a guess, or based on religion, or it can come from a dream. But a hypothesis isn't the end of science, it's the beginning.
Here is a recent article about a scientific study on dreaming:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ty-check-why-dreams-arent-what-they-seem.html
We can tentatively assume that anecdotal reports about dreaming are true representations of the dreamer's experience and see if there are trends. You see, we can be confident that the experience of the dream is real, but the subject matter may not be.
If science desn't have to disprove that someone had a spiritual experience in a dream, why does it have to disprove a personal God exists, or even form such an hypothesis--let's say the hypothesis comes from "anywhere"?spidergoat said:
Or have the goalposts shifted again; now you're saying people really do dream, but the "subject matter may not be real", as opposed to "can be proven false", as you appeared to claim initially?
I think you're really just airing an opinion still. I think that, really, you have nothing to support your original claim, and I think you, and science, will never have any such thing, because your hypothesis is just as unprovable as the existence of a religious or spiritual dream.
So all you're doing is resorting to anecdotal evidence, because that and your opinion is all you will ever have to support your position.
It's a crock, in other words. Like believing that (John's account of) Jesus meant light from the sun, which I know personally is an incorrect assumption. I know this because there is light which doesn't interact with my eyes, which I can "see" almost constantly while conscious. If you restrict the phenomenon of light to be only that which is made of photons, you exclude dreams as well (which aren't "dark", if they were you wouldn't have dreams would you?). And you do have dreams, don't you--they aren't excluded at all by the "physical" nature of light?
What's your personal explanation for the lucidity of dreams? Where does the illumination of dreams come from if you aren't really seeing light?
And it has to be logical, of course. Logic is important, but maybe logic isn't everything. Maybe you don't need to believe anything when you have a dream, all you "have" is dreaming, when you dream. Dreams are notoriously devoid of logic, right?
But there is no scientific support for or against the personal God hypothesis, all there is is an hypothesis which may or may not be provable, and I'm most definitely leaning towards the latter option. Therefore the hypothesis can be dismissed as unimportant and not contributing to the experience of dreams, or the enjoyment of life.
Last edited:
I meant that science does not have to disprove the content of a dream because dreams themselves can be about anything real or imagined. I can dream about light even if I'm blind.
The fact is perception doesn't happen in our eyes, it happens in our brain, so the brain can remember that it perceived something in the past and use that as subject matter for a dream.
I do have personal anecdotal experience with enlightenment, which was accompanied by a strange clarity of vision. I think that's what happens when minds (the doors of perception) are opened. It stops filtering what it sees and sees more directly. I cannot verify this scientifically, but I don't think that's important. The fact that this can happen to an atheist following an atheist practice seems to support that this light isn't actually God but some by-product of altered consciousness.
We only need the philosophy of science to dismiss most claims of evidence, not an experiment. The exception so far is a prayer study which was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
The fact is perception doesn't happen in our eyes, it happens in our brain, so the brain can remember that it perceived something in the past and use that as subject matter for a dream.
I do have personal anecdotal experience with enlightenment, which was accompanied by a strange clarity of vision. I think that's what happens when minds (the doors of perception) are opened. It stops filtering what it sees and sees more directly. I cannot verify this scientifically, but I don't think that's important. The fact that this can happen to an atheist following an atheist practice seems to support that this light isn't actually God but some by-product of altered consciousness.
We only need the philosophy of science to dismiss most claims of evidence, not an experiment. The exception so far is a prayer study which was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Substitute "altered consciousness" for "personal God" and your argument changes completely.spidergoat said:
The fact that the light I see while awake alters my consciousness, and I'm not religious per se, seems to support that this light doesn't have to have a logical name attached to it. I have no idea what "actually God" means, and I firmly believe I have no need to. Furthermore I believe that science or logic has no way to illuminate what this "actually God" might be.
The philosophy of science excludes personal claims, then?
We only need the philosophy of dreams to dismiss the claims of scientists who believe that everything has a logical explanation. I personally cannot see the logic of talking to God as a form of prayer; I pray in a quite different manner and I don't expect miracles, or any kind of intervention--actually I try not to expect anything. How could this kind of prayer be studied, and does it constitute a counterexample so the study isn't conclusive after all? Remember, it was a study of people who were praying by talking aloud, and who were praying with expectation that their prayers would be answered? I assume the conclusion was that their prayers weren't answered? So as long as science investigates only that kind of praying, it can reach a conclusion? Big deal.
Isn't the prayer study itself actually based on an illogical premise--that personal claims can be studied rather than dismissed, according to the rules of philosophy of science, which contradicts your claim about it?
Have you ever watched a small child play with their imaginary friend? The cute little girl might invite her teddy bear and her favorite dolls to a tea party. This play is not taught but will happen spontaneously. She may learn the tea party from her mother, but she will populate the party with toys that can talk and interact, like a living fairie tale. The conversation can be very spontaneous and even clever. It is very natural for little child's brain to generate interactive output via their imaginations.
The next question becomes is this behavior real? It is real in the sense that the effect is natural (happens in a lot of children) and is creating an output that can be observed. This output is no different than watching a monkey in the jungle to observe it natural nature. We can't tell what is exactly going on in their mind, but we see an output that we can observe and infer. In the case of the small child, they have a personal relationship with something inside and they are generating output.
After a certain age, this is no longer considered cute. Rather parents start to fear social stigma. If an adult were to talk to the same imaginary friend, he has to be crazy. But the child does not have to be crazy, since this is natural. We are not conditioned to have the imaginary friend in the brain, since it is natutal and spontaneous. We are conditioned as adults to repress it. Atheism is conditioned, with the basis of a personal god as natural as child's play (less you be as children).
The next question becomes is this behavior real? It is real in the sense that the effect is natural (happens in a lot of children) and is creating an output that can be observed. This output is no different than watching a monkey in the jungle to observe it natural nature. We can't tell what is exactly going on in their mind, but we see an output that we can observe and infer. In the case of the small child, they have a personal relationship with something inside and they are generating output.
After a certain age, this is no longer considered cute. Rather parents start to fear social stigma. If an adult were to talk to the same imaginary friend, he has to be crazy. But the child does not have to be crazy, since this is natural. We are not conditioned to have the imaginary friend in the brain, since it is natutal and spontaneous. We are conditioned as adults to repress it. Atheism is conditioned, with the basis of a personal god as natural as child's play (less you be as children).
Wrong. Again.
Or are you claiming god is just an imaginary friend that some people keep because they don't grow up?
No, he's exactly right for a change! Great post, wellwisher. That's exactly what's going on, Religion is a form of neoteny, the continuation of infantile traits into adulthood.
Children are probabally afraid to play near you, Dywyddyr, so you may never have observed this child's play.
Little children are more natural than adults, since they are not yet taught how to act. They can be a wild little animals for a few years since it is too cute to resist. If you wish to learn some natural things, observe small children. Their imagination interaction is natural, with children treating this more seriously than adult role play. You can hurt their feelings in you insult their friend. Word of caution if you run the experiment.
Run an experiment to collect your own data rather than memorize and repeat. First try to smile and not be grouchy. Then try to find some small children, who are still allowed to be natural. Ask simiple questions to see if they are natural athiests or do they believe in a world without the known natural laws. After a certain age, these same children will homogenize more into social uniformity with stock answers. Once the answers are not diverse and uniquely cute, and become stock, natural is being lost.
The next study, would be to define the age of atheism. Are these children more natural or more synthetic? Then tell us the results.
Little children are more natural than adults, since they are not yet taught how to act. They can be a wild little animals for a few years since it is too cute to resist. If you wish to learn some natural things, observe small children. Their imagination interaction is natural, with children treating this more seriously than adult role play. You can hurt their feelings in you insult their friend. Word of caution if you run the experiment.
Run an experiment to collect your own data rather than memorize and repeat. First try to smile and not be grouchy. Then try to find some small children, who are still allowed to be natural. Ask simiple questions to see if they are natural athiests or do they believe in a world without the known natural laws. After a certain age, these same children will homogenize more into social uniformity with stock answers. Once the answers are not diverse and uniquely cute, and become stock, natural is being lost.
The next study, would be to define the age of atheism. Are these children more natural or more synthetic? Then tell us the results.
Except for atheism being a form of conditioning.
really? It is? I was conditioned to be an atheist?
That's Wellwisher's claim.
Well, it's education not conditioning, but he's almost right.
