New science of religion

[Arioch]

@arauca --

"Don't tempt me for misunderstanding or your intent is maliciously to ban me."

This bit that you attributed to Grumpy doesn't appear in his post.

 

[spidergoat]

HAVE WE PROVED THAT we can duplicate , or even we have a complete understanding on how to make it work ?

Hilarious, as if someday scientists will conclude, "Well, we know almost everything about a cell, but there is one little thing we don't know yet, so that must be the work of God, and not just any God, but the Jewish one. Amen.".

 

[Grumpy]

arauca

I don’t expand my thought beyond the earth .

Then you know squat about the majority of what you call creation. And if your god exists at all, he exists there as well. If he is real and he exists there then we can see his influence in the Universe, just like you think we can see his influence in a single cell(we don't see it there either). We don't yet know everything about life, and god got a billion years to get it going, we've only had a couple hundred to understand it. And we see huge archetectural flaws in lifeforms. Do you know why the girraff has no voice? It's because a key nerve that goes from the brain to the vocal cords evolved to pass behind an arterial loop. In a short necked creature this is not a problem, it's actually an almost straight line, but in the girraff the nerve passes from the brain, down the neck, around the artery and then all the way back up the neck to the vocal cords. At some time in the past it got so long(up to 40 feet today) that it no longer worked, thus no voice.

"Most religions claim that humans possess immaterial souls that control much of our mental processing. If that were true, we should be able to observe mentally induced phenomena that are independent of brain chemistry. We do not."

That is poor question : My answer to you . How would an immortal soul contact with us but through brain . There have been some MRI study of this phenomena and the pattern of praying in tongue show difference then in chanting

I have seen no evidence there is an immortal anything in humans. I can give you a very small dose of Lysergic acid and change your whole world view(perhaps permanently). If there was a soul in the drivers seat such chemistry could not do that. Different areas of the brain light up when you laugh, when you read, when you dream, when you look at something or even when you try to remember your own name. This supports the position that all concious and unconcious thought is the result of physical and chemical signals in different parts of the hardware, just like in a computer chip(in principle if not in detail).

Ten commandments were given to us and a choice was given to us follow or not

Are you laboring under the delusion that morals didn't exist for tens of thousands of years before Moses? Where do you think he got the idea? Some say(a Foxism meaning the following is not necessarily true)Moses was an Egypthian heir who, when he was passed over, took a bunch of people away and made up his own religion(the rulers of Egypt were gods in their own religion).

"If God is the creator of the universe, then we should find evidence for that in astronomy and physics. We do not."
I don’t argue about the universe , that is beyond my comprehension

But not mine, at least to what we know so far.

"If humans are a special creation of God, then the universe should be congenial to human life. It is not.(It is amazing at creating Black Holes in all sizes-G)"
The cell is programmed for evolution and intelligence so we have evolved . we have progressed look into history even we kill each other we have progressed , our social life for security for food and shelter have increased , you even don’t have to wash your garment in the river . About black hole , that is your bread and water .

The point is the Universe is not made to fit us, we evolved to fit the Universe. By and large there are very few places where we could survive. The Universe was not designed with us in mind, it is much better at being able to create Black Holes. So if a god designed the Universe he likes Black Holes much more than he does us. Why else would he make so many of them?

Grumpy

 

[river]

http://www.newscientist.com/special/god Can't live with him, can't live without him. In a special series of articles we lay out a new vision that resets the terms of the debate In our enlightened world, god is still everywhere. In the UK, arguments rage over "militant atheism" and the place of religion in public life. In the US, religion is again taking centre stage in the presidential election. Try as we might, we just don't seem to be able to let go. Perhaps that is because we have been looking at god the wrong way. Atheists often see gods and religion as being imposed from above, a bit like a totalitarian regime. But religious belief is more subtle and interesting than that. In these articles we lay out a new scientific vision that promises to, if not resolve ancient tensions, at least reset the terms of the debate. Like it or not, religious belief is ingrained into human nature. And a good thing too: without it we would still be living in the Stone Age. Viewing religion this way opens up new territory in the battle between science and religion, not least that religion is much more likely to persist than science. Of course, the truth or otherwise of religion is not a closed book to science: the existence of a deity can be treated as a scientific hypothesis. Meanwhile, society is gradually learning to live without religion by replicating its success at binding people together. This is something secularists ought to take seriously. Only by understanding what religion is and is not can we ever hope to move on. I like that if there would not be religion there would not be science .

then the " New Science of Religion " should also include Ancient History

since thats where religion ALL started

 

[arauca]

arauca



Then you know squat about the majority of what you call creation. And if your god exists at all, he exists there as well. If he is real and he exists there then we can see his influence in the Universe, just like you think we can see his influence in a single cell(we don't see it there either). We don't yet know everything about life, and god got a billion years to get it going, we've only had a couple hundred to understand it. And we see huge archetectural flaws in lifeforms. Do you know why the girraff has no voice? It's because a key nerve that goes from the brain to the vocal cords evolved to pass behind an arterial loop. In a short necked creature this is not a problem, it's actually an almost straight line, but in the girraff the nerve passes from the brain, down the neck, around the artery and then all the way back up the neck to the vocal cords. At some time in the past it got so long(up to 40 feet today) that it no longer worked, thus no voice.
Grumpy

I am very happy you know so much, please dont brag , At this point I think you are a big mouth. I said simply a living cell and that evolved , you bringing giraffe and voice animal with long neck, does the same thing applies to lama , ostrich, do you know that . Black hole . I am familiar with some astronomy, Shit... Go you knows all that is enough for me.

 

[Yazata]

Can't live with him, can't live without him. In a special series of articles we lay out a new vision that resets the terms of the debate

A whole issue of Newscientist devoted to belief in God? That's interesting. There's a Barnes-and-Noble near me, so maybe I'll go grab a mocha in their cafe or something and skim the magazine and perhaps read a few of the more interesting articles.

In our enlightened world, god is still everywhere. In the UK, arguments rage over "militant atheism" and the place of religion in public life. In the US, religion is again taking centre stage in the presidential election. Try as we might, we just don't seem to be able to let go.

And then there's Sciforums! Oh, man!!

Atheists and theists locked into cage-battles to the death, bones breaking and blood spurting! Both sides entrenched in impregnable a-priori dogmatic positions launching viscious insults and non-sequiturs back and forth like rocket propelled grenades!

(It's kind of entertaining in a guilty sort of way, like staring at car-crashes.)

Perhaps that is because we have been looking at god the wrong way. Atheists often see gods and religion as being imposed from above, a bit like a totalitarian regime. But religious belief is more subtle and interesting than that. In these articles we lay out a new scientific vision that promises to, if not resolve ancient tensions, at least reset the terms of the debate.

Like it or not, religious belief is ingrained into human nature.

I think that's kinda-true. It isn't so much that human nature has a basic awareness and knowledge of God pre-written into it at the factory. (That's a traditional Christian assertion, btw.) I think that it's more that human beings have evolved various cognitive and social traits that make human beings prone to generate God-beliefs as an unintended consequence.

(Things like an emotional preference for personal relationships over inanimate objects, an innate ability to interpret other people's feelings and motivations, and so on.)

And a good thing too: without it we would still be living in the Stone Age.

Without the underlying social instincts we wouldn't just be in the stone-age, we wouldn't be human at all. Or even social animals, for that matter.

But without religion in the form of God-belief we wouldn't have emerged from the stone-age? I'd like to see an argument for that. I don't think that I believe it.

Viewing religion this way opens up new territory in the battle between science and religion, not least that religion is much more likely to persist than science.

I think that's true. Religion kind of goes with the flow of human nature. Science tries to swim against the current.

It's just a lot harder to learn calculus than it is to hang out with your friends, despite the fact that hanging out with your friends is a vastly more complicated data processing task. The difference is that we come pre-wired to interact socially. We have to teach ourselves differential equations, step by laborious step.

Of course, the truth or otherwise of religion is not a closed book to science: the existence of a deity can be treated as a scientific hypothesis.

If God is transcendental being, supposedly outside space and time entirely and not subject to the causal regularities of nature, then what kind of epistemological access to God can science achieve? How would ideas like 'natural law' apply to God?

Meanwhile, society is gradually learning to live without religion by replicating its success at binding people together. This is something secularists ought to take seriously. Only by understanding what religion is and is not can we ever hope to move on.

Yeah, I agree with that.

 

[Volignyt]

I have heard the argument that some stories claim to be science fiction and are not. A popular example is Star Wars.

 

[kx000]

http://www.newscientist.com/special/god

Can't live with him, can't live without him. In a special series of articles we lay out a new vision that resets the terms of the debate

In our enlightened world, god is still everywhere. In the UK, arguments rage over "militant atheism" and the place of religion in public life. In the US, religion is again taking centre stage in the presidential election. Try as we might, we just don't seem to be able to let go.

Perhaps that is because we have been looking at god the wrong way. Atheists often see gods and religion as being imposed from above, a bit like a totalitarian regime. But religious belief is more subtle and interesting than that. In these articles we lay out a new scientific vision that promises to, if not resolve ancient tensions, at least reset the terms of the debate.

Like it or not, religious belief is ingrained into human nature. And a good thing too: without it we would still be living in the Stone Age.

Viewing religion this way opens up new territory in the battle between science and religion, not least that religion is much more likely to persist than science.

Of course, the truth or otherwise of religion is not a closed book to science: the existence of a deity can be treated as a scientific hypothesis.

Meanwhile, society is gradually learning to live without religion by replicating its success at binding people together. This is something secularists ought to take seriously. Only by understanding what religion is and is not can we ever hope to move on.

I like that if there would not be religion there would not be science .

A mobilization of armed atheist is a step closer to armageddon. If your quarrel is against modern religion, and global corruption, count me in. If your just looking for a fight against faithful, and theist then count me out.

 

[kx000]

Hilarious, as if someday scientists will conclude, "Well, we know almost everything about a cell, but there is one little thing we don't know yet, so that must be the work of God, and not just any God, but the Jewish one. Amen.".

God (The Creator) will always be the greatest explanation you ever receive.

 

[Jan Ardena]

http://www.newscientist.com/special/god

Can't live with him, can't live without him. In a special series of articles we lay out a new vision that resets the terms of the debate

In our enlightened world, god is still everywhere. In the UK, arguments rage over "militant atheism" and the place of religion in public life. In the US, religion is again taking centre stage in the presidential election. Try as we might, we just don't seem to be able to let go.

Perhaps that is because we have been looking at god the wrong way. Atheists often see gods and religion as being imposed from above, a bit like a totalitarian regime. But religious belief is more subtle and interesting than that. In these articles we lay out a new scientific vision that promises to, if not resolve ancient tensions, at least reset the terms of the debate.

Like it or not, religious belief is ingrained into human nature. And a good thing too: without it we would still be living in the Stone Age.

Viewing religion this way opens up new territory in the battle between science and religion, not least that religion is much more likely to persist than science.

Of course, the truth or otherwise of religion is not a closed book to science: the existence of a deity can be treated as a scientific hypothesis.

Meanwhile, society is gradually learning to live without religion by replicating its success at binding people together. This is something secularists ought to take seriously. Only by understanding what religion is and is not can we ever hope to move on.

I like that if there would not be religion there would not be science .

At least this author realises that atheists need to know what God, and God-based relgion is, in order to move on. Whatever he means by ''move on''.

jan.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

"The existence of a deity can be treated as a scientific hypothesis." Garbage logic.

This is a perfect example of why the Rule of Laplace is crucial to the scientific method.

"An extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat it with respect."​

The assertion that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, is the most extraordinary assertion that can be made. The reason is that it claims to falsify the basic premise that underlies all science.

The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its past and present behavior.​

The scientific method is recursive; this premise has been tested for 500 years and never come close to falsification. All of science is based on it, and all of science works. There is zero evidence to support supernaturalism, and half a millennium of evidence to support science.

Therefore the assertion of the existence of a supernatural universe and its inhabitants is not scientific. It is pure crackpottery. It's time we started calling religion what it is, instead of pussyfooting around for fear of being rude to the poor weak-brained religionists.

 

[Aqueous Id]

At least this author realises that atheists need to know what God, and God-based relgion is, in order to move on. Whatever he means by ''move on''.

jan.

Hi, jan. As a full-fledged card-carrying atheist and member of the club (as you aptly pointed out to me before ), I assure you I know what God is: a myth, and what God-based religion is: superstition. Having thus "found Jesus" as it were, I have moved on, only to occasionally return to the draw bridge, and wave at the folks on the other side, just to let them know the coast is clear, they can cross over and they won't fall off the edge of the universe.

Having said that, don't let me disturb your own karma, which, although it does seem to me to run contrary to nature and logic, is obviously your own chosen world view, for reasons of your own.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Hi, jan. As a full-fledged card-carrying atheist and member of the club (as you aptly pointed out to me before), I assure you I know what God is: a myth, and what God-based religion is: superstition.

But it's also an instinct, programmed into our neurons by our DNA, as Jung pointed out although in different words (he called religion a collection of archetypes) because DNA hadn't been discovered yet. This is a key point that must be dealt with before trying to find a way around the religion problem.

Most people are born with the basics of supernaturalism hard-wired in their brains. A belief which you are born with feels more true than any belief you acquire later in life through learning or reasoning.

This is what we're up against. Genetic memory, as it were. Supernaturalism does not appear to be a survival trait as most instincts are, so it's probably a random mutation that was passed down by genetic drift or through a genetic bottleneck. But that doesn't make it feel any less real to the vast majority of the human race who accept it. And that doesn't make it any less real of a problem for us who are trying to help humanity overcome this enormous handicap that periodically threatens to destroy civilization and transport us back to the Stone Age when no one questioned the wisdom of their priests.

 

[Aqueous Id]

But it's also an instinct, programmed into our neurons by our DNA, as Jung pointed out although in different words (he called religion a collection of archetypes) because DNA hadn't been discovered yet.

Indeed I think we can independently come to the same conclusions as Jung - and without comprehending DNA - as follows. We need only observe that people (especially noticed in the overt inquisitiveness of children) are innately curious. With just a little interpolation we can conclude that this is an inherited trait. A second observation is that people tend to speculate when their curiosity exceeds available information. Finally we all experience situations in which our own guesses are found wrong, and with experience we tend to rely on guesswork more cautiously. We notice faults in logic, fallacies and bias. We only need to project these behaviors onto primitive cultures and it will immediately become obvious that when they assigned the powers of thunder, fertility, etc., to the deities they invented, they did so out of the same tendency to answer their curiosity about how things work with the same speculation we observe in ourselves. Therefore, with just a simple comparison of modern human nature against our expectations of how ancient people possessed the same faculties, we are left to conclude that indeed superstition is genetically wired. I think we can even relate this reasoning process to the traits most beneficial to survival - that to find food, or the proper way to chip flint, or any of the most primitive of activities - trial and error would lead to discovery, success and survival. Ironically, although the continuation of those processes led to the discoveries we now call science, that same drive to adhere to the tried and true methods of our forebears - how to chip the flint, and how thunder is made - remain indelibly imprinted in the collective psyche, arising out of the primordial program handed down to us in our DNA.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi, jan. As a full-fledged card-carrying atheist and member of the club (as you aptly pointed out to me before ), I assure you I know what God is: a myth, and what God-based religion is: superstition. Having thus "found Jesus" as it were, I have moved on, only to occasionally return to the draw bridge, and wave at the folks on the other side, just to let them know the coast is clear, they can cross over and they won't fall off the edge of the universe.

Having said that, don't let me disturb your own karma, which, although it does seem to me to run contrary to nature and logic, is obviously your own chosen world view, for reasons of your own.

Hi Aqueous Id, I will be most interested in what it is that you know, and how you came about this knowledge. This is very exciting.

Is it even possible for a human being to run contrary to nature?


As for logic, I don't make a pretence of it, IOW, the urge to maintain this presentation, is not written in my world view and as such, I can understand that without basic logic, it is very difficult to survive in this world. From basic logic one can develop ones ability, as one develops. It also help me discriminate between the fake aspects of peoples character and personality, and focus on where they are really at.

Imagine a person who goes the gym to get stronger, versus a person who is naturally strong.


I try to enjoy my time as a human being, by allowing myself to take in all manner of experiences that come my way without the burden of trying contextualise it to fit my outlook.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But it's also an instinct, programmed into our neurons by our DNA, as Jung pointed out although in different words (he called religion a collection of archetypes) because DNA hadn't been discovered yet. This is a key point that must be dealt with before trying to find a way around the religion problem.

Most people are born with the basics of supernaturalism hard-wired in their brains. A belief which you are born with feels more true than any belief you acquire later in life through learning or reasoning.

This is what we're up against. Genetic memory, as it were. Supernaturalism does not appear to be a survival trait as most instincts are, so it's probably a random mutation that was passed down by genetic drift or through a genetic bottleneck. But that doesn't make it feel any less real to the vast majority of the human race who accept it. And that doesn't make it any less real of a problem for us who are trying to help humanity overcome this enormous handicap that periodically threatens to destroy civilization and transport us back to the Stone Age when no one questioned the wisdom of their priests.

Do you honestly believe all this?
Or do you know this as truth?

I say truth, because I cannot imagine how there can be physical evidence.

Is there physical evidence?


jan.

 

[wynn]

Hi, jan. As a full-fledged card-carrying atheist and member of the club (as you aptly pointed out to me before ), I assure you I know what God is: a myth, and what God-based religion is: superstition.

Oh. So you've just implicitly asserted that you are omniscient.
Wow. Great.

Having said that, don't let me disturb your own karma, which, although it does seem to me to run contrary to nature and logic, is obviously your own chosen world view, for reasons of your own.

While your own convictions are not chosen for reasons of your own, but are instead the objective truth itself, without personal bias ...

 

[Aqueous Id]

Oh. So you've just implicitly asserted that you are omniscient.
Wow. Great.

Hi wynn! Omniscience? Hmmm. . . that would apply better to folks who "know" the infinite God, wouldn't it? In my case, it's just -science.

While your own convictions are not chosen for reasons of your own, but are instead the objective truth itself, without personal bias ...

Did I say all that? I would swear I only said God is myth and religion is superstition.

 

[wynn]

Did I say all that? I would swear I only said God is myth and religion is superstition.

And unless you have some very good arguments for what you state (such as you being omniscient), you're just full of shit.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Hi Aqueous Id, I will be most interested in what it is that you know, and how you came about this knowledge. This is very exciting.

You already know I'm devoutly atheist. The best most exciting thing would be if someone would sprinkle me with holy water and it would make my skin stripe and boil, maybe turn green, something like that. But of course that would require magic which is in such short supply these days. It seems to have gotten used up in all those singular events that we only have left in story form.

Is it even possible for a human being to run contrary to nature?

I know I've used the term in different ways, but hopefully you understand my meaning here, that from my point of view it goes against nature to turn away from best evidence. Of course you have your point of view and your own discovery that you go by. For me, I can't overcome my awareness of the superstitious roots of these stories, and in this case that's what I mean by nature. As it would go against my nature to ignore this and give myth credibility, it seems to go against nature and logic for anyone else to do so.

As for logic, I don't make a pretence of it, IOW, the urge to maintain this presentation, is not written in my world view and as such, I can understand that without basic logic, it is very difficult to survive in this world. From basic logic one can develop ones ability, as one develops. It also help me discriminate between the fake aspects of peoples character and personality, and focus on where they are really at.

I agree with all of that. What I said is from a completely different dimension, as I was referring to something more automatic - the way we choose whether to believe ideas - whereas you are speaking here of something more personal - how to believe people. And you relate logic to survival skills and personal development, which, if I were to construct a parallel in my statement, might amount to choosing an ethic.

Imagine a person who goes the gym to get stronger, versus a person who is naturally strong.

Natural strength sounds like someone who's accustomed to getting a good workout just scraping to get by, whereas the folks who go to gyms have been kicking back and need to go work up a concentrated sweat to make up for all the goldbricking.

I try to enjoy my time as a human being, by allowing myself to take in all manner of experiences that come my way without the burden of trying contextualise it to fit my outlook.

That sounds like a very good place to be.