Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

[Saint]

Quote:

Leading scientists still reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.



Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.


Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Figures are percentages.


Repeating Leuba's methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists [1,2]. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.

For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists". It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question [1]. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.

Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers [1]. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members [1,2].

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.



Edward J. Larson
Department of History, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA
e-mail:edlarson@uga.edu

Larry Witham
3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,
Maryland 20866, USA

[FZ+]

Erm.... so?
The misleading thing about this study is that it is totally ambiguous as to the causal link. Maybe more atheists enter science because they see it as a source of explanation? This doesn't say anything about science itself.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Erm.... so?
The misleading thing about this study is that it is totally ambiguous as to the causal link. Maybe more atheists enter science because they see it as a source of explanation? This doesn't say anything about science itself.

Maybe that is because you can only ask the scientist as a human being about his/her (dis)beliefs, and can not adress that question to science (a human activity) itself?

[wuliheron]

That scientists tend to be skeptical comes as no surprise to anyone. Such is the entire history of science. Somebody has to challange the statis quo in an organized fashion. In the case of the sciences, they have found an indespensible way of doing this.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Saint
Quote:

Leading scientists still reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.



Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total. . . . As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools . . . The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral". NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.

Very well done. I am convinced scientists regularly spin-doctor their biases. The strategy is often two-pronged. First, they present materialistic theories that are poorly supported by evidence, but which they imply are all but proven. Second, they advance an image of objectivity on their part and tolerance for non-material views in others which is utterly false. The truth is, they are committed to convincing the world that its creator is matter, mechanics, and accidents, and that notions of God are the surviving superstitions of primitive peoples.

This site is full of people in MAJOR denial about their biases and how they distort facts to justify the religion of materialism. Personally, I am thrilled to the core when I find that rare individual who couldn't possibly care less what the "truth" is, but just wants it like it is, whether that is materialism or theism or something in between or something entirely different.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
Erm.... so?
The misleading thing about this study
is that it is totally ambiguous as to
the causal link. Maybe more atheists
enter science because they see it as
a source of explanation? This doesn't
say anything about science itself.
Yes, but I believe it is also a matter of
simple brain power, a wiser person will
question things, including the concept
of God, and see it has no justification.
And scientists are naturally ussualy wise
people in most respects.

Live long and prosper.

[drag]

Greetings !

On another note, I can see 4 threads with
the word God in their title on top of this
forum right now. Don't you guys have the
God & Religion forum to discuss this stuff ?!
I really don't see why these threads should be
directly in Philosophy if you have the
other forum, some people here may wish to
discuss more serious subjects...[;)]

Live long and prosper.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Very well done. I am convinced scientists regularly spin-doctor their biases. The strategy is often two-pronged. First, they present materialistic theories that are poorly supported by evidence, but which they imply are all but proven. Second, they advance an image of objectivity on their part and tolerance for non-material views in others which is utterly false. The truth is, they are committed to convincing the world that its creator is matter, mechanics, and accidents, and that notions of God are the surviving superstitions of primitive peoples.

This site is full of people in MAJOR denial about their biases and how they distort facts to justify the religion of materialism. Personally, I am thrilled to the core when I find that rare individual who couldn't possibly care less what the "truth" is, but just wants it like it is, whether that is materialism or theism or something in between or something entirely different.
You, sir, have no idea what science is about.
Science is about looking for truth from the evidence we have, and there is no way that can be done without assuming that some aspect at least of the truth can be found by material means. If you don't make that assumption, then you get nowhere, except the knowledge that you have no knowledge. Maybe not even that.

Everybody has biases. Even the neutral have a bias, towards neutrality.

I think you confuse materialism with science. Many scientists are materialists, because they can only approach what they are studying from a material perspective. But everybody has beliefs. The truth is that science does attempt to be objective. That's why we call them THEORIES - to dissuade a claim to monopoly on the truth. And out of the melee of conflicting theories do we get closer to truth. The poorly supported do not live long, when confronted by what is better supported. That is critical, and though there is a temptation to substitute theory for hypotheses, the core of science is to maintain this.
Many scientists are spiritualists. The data does confirm this existence does it not? The heros of science, your Newtons, Einsteins, Maxwells, Keplers, Darwins, Galileos are almost exclusively theists. This fact was interestingly ignored. Science requires the assumption that there is usefulness in dealing with material existence. It does not imply that this is all that exists. The idea that it is, is an unneccessary prejudice. Are theologists scientists? From your post, you must think there is a hidden breeding factory where scientists are manufactured and programmed. I assue you that is untrue.[;)] If a scientist is atheist, even antitheist, his/hers experiences suggest so. That is nothing to do with science itself.

This site is full of people in MAJOR denial about their biases and how they distort facts to justify the religion of materialism.
Where? This site is full of people in MAJOR denial about their biases and how they distort facts to justify the religion of God/democracy/spiritualism/moderatism/neutralism/pragmatism/logic/mathematics/technology/physics/biology/soliphism/socialism/capitalism/communism/fascism/chemistry/sensationalism/realism/idealism/existentialism/humanism/atheism/agnosticism/nationalism/modernism/vanilla-with-chocolate-sprinkles-ice-creamism. (Delete as appropiate) Clearly one's own belief is holy and true, right?

Personally, I am thrilled to the core when I find that rare individual who couldn't possibly care less what the "truth" is, but just wants it like it is, whether that is materialism or theism or something in between or something entirely different.
Oh sure everyone wants the objective truth. We are just never going to get it.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

On another note, I can see 4 threads with
the word God in their title on top of this
forum right now. Don't you guys have the
God & Religion forum to discuss this stuff ?!
I really don't see why these threads should be
directly in Philosophy if you have the
other forum, some people here may wish to
discuss more serious subjects...[;)]

Live long and prosper. I understand your point, Drag, but also think that while you personally may not consider the subject to be serious, others do. Plus, it is hard to get answers over there which don't involve circular reasoning to the max, and I might bump into that BoulderHead jerk who only wants to make fun of me. [:D]

[drag]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I understand your point, Drag, but also think
that while you personally may not consider the
subject to be serious, others do. Plus, it is
hard to get answers over there which don't
involve circular reasoning to the max, and
I might bump into that BoulderHead jerk who
only wants to make fun of me. [:D]
Hmm... Don't provoke me ! [:D]
I don't visit that forum, but I can make
much greater fun of people if I see this
one needs defence... [;)] [:D]

Peace and long life.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by drag
Hmm... Don't provoke me ! [:D]
I don't visit that forum, but I can make
much greater fun of people if I see this
one needs defence... [;)] [:D]

Peace and long life. But that's part of the problem Drag, you need to come over and play more often. [:D]

Actually, you are very much correct. That forum does say God and Religion. I think there is a topic both there, and here, which defines god.

Not that our Mentor needs it, but I hearby give my consent to have the topic I started here in philosophy moved to God and Religion. Mentat, you were right.
Kerrie??

[Alexander]

It is obvious why dominant majority of natural scientists don't believe in superstitions (like Gods or Santas) - they know FACTS about nature.

Very few other people know natural facts, especially in US where natural education is quite poor. That is why majority of others have no choice but to turn to superstitions - they simply don't know facts about nature.

[Fliption]

In my opinion the last several posts have been some of the most arrogant, patronizing, and insulting posts I've seen in this forum.

Just when I thought we were making progress here. [:(]

Alexander, you should stop insulting people's education just because they don't agree with you. It's not logically sound to revert to this tactic.

I think I said before in Boulder's other thread that some threads on God belong in the "god and religion" forum but some do not. It's a fine line. This one probably belongs over there but Boulder's I think belongs in the philosphy forum.

[Alexander]

I am not insulting, I just state facts.

Is telling a child (who belives in Santa) that Santa does not exist an insult?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
You, sir, have no idea what science is about.

I wish I hadn't written that response, it was late, I was exhausted, I'd had a little too much wine with my friends . . .

However, now that I've put my foot in my mouth (and you've quoted me in your post so I can't delete it!), I will try to more carefully say something.

I know exactly what science is. As an ideal it is wonderful. Also, I have no illusions about just how material the universe and I myself are, and the abilities of science truly are helping us all understand our existence better (not to mention making life more liveable). I read lots of science and watch it (or history) whenever the TV is on, so I am a big fan.

Originally posted by FZ+
Science is about looking for truth from the evidence we have. . . I think you confuse materialism with science. Many scientists are materialists, because they can only approach what they are studying from a material perspective. But everybody has beliefs. The truth is that science does attempt to be objective.

I do not confuse materialism with science. It is fine for scientists or anyone else to be materialists . . . I do not object to people having any belief they choose as long as it does no harm.
But if you think materialist scientists, which appear to be the large majority, are as you say " looking for truth from the evidence we have," then you are wrong.

The evidence they look at is material evidence, and the investigative method they use only reveals material processes. That's fine too because that is what science is about. But the materialist scientist proves his/her bias when you hear someone say or imply that "based on all the evidence we have, there is not basis for considering that anything immaterial is part of creation." If they had the courage to speak their opinion they would go on to say, "So based on the evidence we have, there is no God, there is no soul, consciousness is an illusion, and any report of immateriality must be false because we can't verify it."

Hmmmmmm. Now that's interesting. Let's see, you only look at material, and you only apply an investigative method that reveals materiality. Gee, I wonder why you never find immaterial stuff?

Then, check out this clever strategy I've heard from materialist scientists.

There actually is [me talking here] evidence of immateriality beyond superstition. The example best supported by existing records is the enlightenment of the Buddha . . . but the experience of enlightenment has been going on for a long time since then too, so it is a well documented event. In fact, there is so much evidence describing this consciousness phenomenon that one could easily spend a lifetime researching it (as I seem to be doing). And the enlightenment experience is NOT religion, but it does appear to be what so attracted and mystified those people who eventually turned the memory of the enlightenment event into a theology.

Now here's the clever strategy I spoke of. If you refer the material scientist to this evidence, they might say it is not in the scope of science. To me this deserves another "hmmmmmm." So, let's see . . . from your studies there is no evidence of immateriality, and you can't study the most consistent reports of it because it's outside your scope. I love that, brilliant!

Originally posted by FZ+
Many scientists are spiritualists. . . . Science requires the assumption that there is usefulness in dealing with material existence. It does not imply that this is all that exists. The idea that it is, is an unneccessary prejudice.

I really think you are wrong about "many" scientists being spiritualists, at least how many compared to the total number of scientists. Saint's figures could be off by quite a bit and still indicate that.

I said I can respect another's beliefs as long as it does no harm, but when you suggest the materialist scientist "does not imply that [materiality] is all that exists," you've hit on exactly the harm I think they are doing.

Virtually every thing I see, written or filmed, appears to me to reflect an attitude that only material processes are considered possible influences on every single feature of existence. I heard it a couple of days ago as I was watched Walter Cronkite interview anthopologists searching for missing links in human evolution. I see it in the interpretations of zero point energy. I see it when Dennett proposes "dismissing" the issue of consciousness and the hoards jump on that bandwagon desperate to get rid of anything that interferes with material interpretations. I see it when chemogenesis is promoted as "most likely" prior to having enough evidence to speak with such conviction.

If you think I want to substitute God or spirit in models without evidence, think again. What I want is for materialist scientists to stop pretending they are not trying to prove materialism, to stop using their bully pulpit (i.e., the status they are now enjoying because of their successes with science) to prematurely push materialistic theories while claiming they are not, and to recognize the potential for distortion of their views by the discipline they are participating in. And it wouldn't hurt if they really did study ALL the evidence.

Originally posted by FZ+ Where? This site is full of people in MAJOR denial about their biases and how they distort facts to justify the religion of God/democracy/spiritualism/moderatism/neutralism/pragmatism/logic/mathematics/technology/physics/biology/soliphism/socialism/capitalism/communism/fascism/chemistry/sensationalism/realism/idealism/existentialism/humanism/atheism/agnosticism/nationalism/modernism/vanilla-with-chocolate-sprinkles-ice-creamism. (Delete as appropiate) Clearly one's own belief is holy and true, right?

I deserved that. [b(] I apologize to everyone for the tone of my earlier post.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Alexander
I am not insulting, I just state facts.

Is telling a child (who belives in Santa) that Santa does not exist an insult?

No. But implying that the reason they have the beliefs they do is because they are poorly educated is an insult. And let's not pretend any of this is as certain as Santa existing. So comparing someone's belief to an obvious fiction like Santa is also an insult.

[drag]

Originally posted by Fliption
So comparing someone's belief to an obvious
fiction like Santa is also an insult.
Hey ! [s(]
How dare you say Santa is a fiction ?! [:((]

[Alexander]

Yeah, Flipton, don't you indeed know that Santa exists (in contrast to vast variety of gods)?

I have a picture of Him (with my son on His lap).

[FZ+]

The evidence they look at is material evidence, and the investigative method they use only reveals material processes. That's fine too because that is what science is about. But the materialist scientist proves his/her bias when you hear someone say or imply that "based on all the evidence we have, there is not basis for considering that anything immaterial is part of creation." If they had the courage to speak their opinion they would go on to say, "So based on the evidence we have, there is no God, there is no soul, consciousness is an illusion, and any report of immateriality must be false because we can't verify it."
If they said this was proved because of science, then they are wrong. Then they make more or less the same mistake LG does - exchange assertions for facts, and lack of proof for proof of non-existence.
Based on the evidence we have, there is no basis for for considering anything immaterial is part of creation. Because immaterial does not coagulate to evidence - rather, it is indifferent to it. The basis that something immaterial is part of creation is nothing to do with any sense that we have seen the immaterial - because that by definition does not make sense. But that we feel it is there.
Based on available evidence, there is no proof for God, there is no proof for a soul, there is no proof for the existence of consciousness, there is no proof of immateriality. But the lack of evidence does not equate to evidence of lack. This is an individualist mistake - not a reflection on science.

Hmmmmmm. Now that's interesting. Let's see, you only look at material, and you only apply an investigative method that reveals materiality. Gee, I wonder why you never find immaterial stuff?
You can't apply an investigative method that reveals immateriality.

Immaterial: not having material form, without substance.
Material: of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance, not spirit.

Your sight only reveals the material, as that is the nature of immateriality. If immateriality can be found investigatively, or disproved investigatively, it would cease being immaterial and manifest as material.
Of course lack of finding does not mean lack of existence.

There actually is [me talking here] evidence of immateriality beyond superstition. The example best supported by existing records is the enlightenment of the Buddha . . . but the experience of enlightenment has been going on for a long time since then too, so it is a well documented event. In fact, there is so much evidence describing this consciousness phenomenon that one could easily spend a lifetime researching it (as I seem to be doing). And the enlightenment experience is NOT religion, but it does appear to be what so attracted and mystified those people who eventually turned the memory of the enlightenment event into a theology.
But how can you investigate this? This is people's beliefs, what people think. This is a study in subjectivity, without instruments. You can interview these people, but without self-experience, this is meaningless. You can rarely reproduce enlightenment. All you can do is a statistical study. But is that the truth? You can not really differentiate what is evidence of immateriality, from what is simply belief in immateriality. Here's why science can't really get a hold of it. It is subjective, and does not manifest outside the mind.
But scientists do try to work on it. You can test the psychology of people who claim it. You can scan their brain patterns to see if it is changed. There is even a group of people, who created the new field of neurotheology (you'd hate them. They are about the most psychotic materialists alive) who are working on a material explanation using magnetic fields. Allegedly, they have reproduced feelings like this by using electromagnets at certain positions and frequencies around the brain. They postulate that spiritual visions can be just the effect of errant magnetic distortions.

You can't prove or disprove immateriality with science, period.

I really think you are wrong about "many" scientists being spiritualists, at least how many compared to the total number of scientists. Saint's figures could be off by quite a bit and still indicate that.
Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].
In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt.
That's 60.7% expressing doubt towards god. That means 39.3% must be fervent believers, without doubt at all. 39.3% is a large number, no matter how you look at it, and the fact appears that the number is growing. (the distinction of "greater" scientists is vague, and not very illuminating - does it mean that atheists do better research? Or that NAS brainwashes it's members? Or that God decided to punish atheists by making them greater scientists?) Some people may not believe in God, but still be spiritualists. Some people may also be neutral on the spiritual/materialist thing. Further, not all scientists are from the US.
What would you consider many? 70%? 100%?

Virtually every thing I see, written or filmed, appears to me to reflect an attitude that only material processes are considered possible influences on every single feature of existence. I heard it a couple of days ago as I was watched Walter Cronkite interview anthopologists searching for missing links in human evolution. I see it in the interpretations of zero point energy. I see it when Dennett proposes "dismissing" the issue of consciousness and the hoards jump on that bandwagon desperate to get rid of anything that interferes with material interpretations. I see it when chemogenesis is promoted as "most likely" prior to having enough evidence to speak with such conviction.
I'll quietly point out the incorrect definition involved, if you consider immaterials (as opposed to unknown materials) having an effect on observable existence. As to non-observable existence, well, they don't show that in a science programme do they? [;)]

I see a biased field of statistics. Let's take an example. Who would they show on TV to demonstrate chemogenesis? Would it be your average scientist? A theist professor working in astronomy? No, they would go to the prime person in the field, the man who works in the field because HE believes in it. They would put it to the most outspoken worker, the one that grabs the most audiences/readers. They pick fields too to do this. And who would they pick to argue for the opposite view? The average scientist? The nuclear physics who believe in divine order? No, they would go to the evangelist, the self-styled defender of the faith, the slayer of evolution. The rest, the moderates of the spectrum don't get a look in, partially because they don't care, and partially because they don't know. The boldest supporters of whatever stance will always be the most fanatical one. Always remember the others skulking behind. What about those who declare that immaterial items are out of science's scope? They don't feature. The only times they feature is when they have to feature it, and then, I think you can see that science is independent of God.

[New-Prototype]

I think most scientists don't believe that there can be a God because such a thing is umm...something that u can't prove, lol. Because I mean what is God really? Is he this guy who sits somewhere waaayyy in the heaven's watching everyone and everything that he created? Or maybe God was a thought or belief created by people to use as an explanation for life?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Based on the evidence we have, there is no basis for for considering anything immaterial is part of creation. Because immaterial does not coagulate to evidence - rather, it is indifferent to it. The basis that something immaterial is part of creation is nothing to do with any sense that we have seen the immaterial - because that by definition does not make sense. But that we feel it is there. . . . Based on available evidence, there is no proof for God, there is no proof for a soul, there is no proof for the existence of consciousness, there is no proof of immateriality. But the lack of evidence does not equate to evidence of lack. This is an individualist mistake - not a reflection on science.

I appreciate you taking the time for such a thorough response, but I don't think this particular debate is going to produce any insights.

I believe that's because while I fully accept the standard for evidence and objective proof for the physical universe, devoted materialists can't seem to accept the notion that there have been individuals who've managed a subjective achievement which is real, but cannot be studied empirically because it is subjective.

However, there is tons of evidence and there is a way to study it. First, there is the well-established methods of historical research, specifically for documents. You collect all the writings by and about individuals you suspect had achieved some measure of the enlightenment experience, and then you very carefully compare their descriptions to look for areas of common reports. You know, you genuinely, thoroughly study it.

But here is how it goes instead. The science community has assumed there is nothing to that because all they really look at is religion. Since religion is so nonsensical, then anything remotely associated with it must be too. Remember, I am not talking about religion, and I am not talking about being "spiritual." I am talking about a very, very specific phenomenon that has occurred for the last three thousand years. You have look hard to separate it out from its surroundings.

For example, there is a man who lived in the 16th century known as John of the Cross. A superficial look would tell you he was a Catholic monk, living the monastic life, and therefore just another religious believer. But then you read his writings and find out he practiced "inner prayer," and his writing clearly reflect his self realization. If investigate what inner prayer is, you find it is the same practice as samadhi the Buddha taught. Interesting.

Keep studying and you find hundreds of people who've attained some sort of conscious "enlightenment" by turning their attention inward and "merging" with something they variously label the soul, the heart, the light, the "unborn", and so on.

What does it mean, what have they achieved? Still more investigation reveals some who attained it so powerfully it attracted thousands of people. Still, we don't know what it is, but the evidence is there that something was going on. It stands out as clear of day if one actually looks. But instead, you have a community of scientists who either ignore it or give it the barest glance.

Now, I don't see anything wrong with that as long I don't hear the scientism devotee preaching materialism. Why? Because they haven't investigated all the evidence, they only investigate objective facts and there are other sorts of evidence which, true, doesn't "prove" anything externally, but it might give one reason to be a little more humble with one's materialistic pronouncements.

So what I say is that practicing the empirical method conditions a lot of people to look at everything that way. They demand all claims be "proved" by their method as though it is the only effective one there is or ever has been. Then I point to the "inner" investigative method that appears to have "worked" for a lot of people. Then the materialists answer me back that because that method can't be investigated with their method, it is outside the realm of science. Then later we hear the materialist claiming "there is no evidence of god, or soul, etc." It's just too much bullsh** to take when you know there really is evidence and the real issue is they couldn't care less about looking for it.[a)]

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Alexander
Yeah, Flipton, don't you indeed know that Santa exists (in contrast to vast variety of gods)?

I have a picture of Him (with my son on His lap).

It's good to see you back in the forum, Alexander. It's nice to have an actual live example of the type of person that we have been discussing with FZ for us to point to. Please do carry on[;)]

[Alexander]

Originally posted by New-Prototype
I think most scientists don't believe that there can be a God because such a thing is umm...something that u can't prove, lol. Because I mean what is God really? Is he this guy who sits somewhere waaayyy in the heaven's watching everyone and everything that he created? Or maybe God was a thought or belief created by people to use as an explanation for life?

According to Bible, a God is the one who made Adam out of clay and then blow soul into Adam, and Adam became first live human.

According to scientific facts this turns to be false. Thus there is no God.

[FZ+]

However, there is tons of evidence and there is a way to study it. First, there is the well-established methods of historical research, specifically for documents. You collect all the writings by and about individuals you suspect had achieved some measure of the enlightenment experience, and then you very carefully compare their descriptions to look for areas of common reports. You know, you genuinely, thoroughly study it.
But here's the problem... how do you know if these people have actually acheived something - ie. whether if what they have acheived is just another state of the mind, a piece of unknown materialism rather than immaterialism? Some scientists who do study this fall to this problem - they study it on the basis of the material responses of the brain, but cannot say whether thi is simply a random response to material influence, or an example of information from Higher planes/powers. Ie, you cannot separate what is objectively real, to what is subjectively believed. It doesn't give you an answer. You can come up with all sorts of hypotheses - that it is a genetic part of the brain, for example, but you'll never really confirm them. Have they actually attained enlightenment, or simply reached a state of mind where they are deluded they are? This is what I mean by being unable to study.
Are these evidence, when they can be taken to mean two things? Are they admissible to the grand old court of science? Most say they are not - not because of trying to save face with the clergy, or to further their materialist urges, but because they don't actually mean anything. Believe materialism, and they tell you how stupid people really are. Believe spiritualism, and they tell you how stupid materialists really are. [;)] If an evidence is only useful with prejudice one way or the other, is it scientific evidence? I say it is out of science's jurisdiction.

(BTW: interesting thing that would contravene both mine and your ideas - Is Psychology a science of the immaterial? Or simply the material effects of the immaterial? Or just the material, period?)

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+ But here's the problem... how do you know if these people have actually acheived something - ie. whether if what they have acheived is just another state of the mind, a piece of unknown materialism rather than immaterialism?

That's why one studies it. As I have said, I've been at it for over two decades and still feel like I don't fully understand it. But I am convinced beyond all doubt that something unusual has gone on in situations where true "enlightenment" has occurred. It stands out for a number of reasons which I would generalize as "variating from the norm." One variation from the norm could be a fluke, but hundreds of reports, coinciding in many respects even though the reports are separated by centuries and thousands of miles, is too unusual to consider merely coincidence. That sort of variation from the norm is exactly what makes wonder about chemogenisis. Chemistry cannot be shown to behave the way it does outside of life, so I wonder what new conditions have been introduced into chemistry to make it "live."

[i]Are these evidence, when they can be taken to mean two things? Are they admissible to the grand old court of science? Most say they are not - not because of trying to save face with the clergy, or to further their materialist urges, but because they don't actually mean anything.[/B]

But see, you are doing exactly what I say materialists do, and that is to judge the subjective achievement of enlightenment by objective standards. As much as everyone is upset by LG trying to convert objective standards into subjective ones, you'd think it would be clear that doing things in reverse is just as fallacious.

In my investigations, I found that to study the phenomenon of enlightenment I had to drop (temporarily) all my objective evalution standards and look at it from an entirely different direction. That doesn't mean one suspends good judgement or reason, but rather one first tries to understand enlightenment as it is presented. To do that you have to throw out all religious ideas and go straight to the source -- i.e., the experience of the individual within enlightenment. If there is anything to it, that is where it will be found.

Originally posted by FZ+ BTW: interesting thing that would contravene both mine and your ideas - Is Psychology a science of the immaterial? Or simply the material effects of the immaterial? Or just the material, period?

Personally, I think psychology is both. It is first the inherent nature of the being, but then it's how that nature has been shaped physiology and its interaction with the environment.

[FZ+]

That's why one studies it. As I have said, I've been at it for over two decades and still feel like I don't fully understand it.
That's my point. I contend that by studying, you simply cannot understand it. The only way you can make the slightest bit of progress is to introduce bias, one way or the other. With the studies of accounts, you can never sort the subjective and the objective.
You see, a different perspective can be put into any of these deviations from the norm. Not that these represent an individual specialness, but simply that our sense of the norm of existence is improperly understood. We could simply all have the capability to experience this material phenomenon, and the rarity makes us class it as immaterial. This ambiguity is what I mean.

But see, you are doing exactly what I say materialists do, and that is to judge the subjective achievement of enlightenment by objective standards. As much as everyone is upset by LG trying to convert objective standards into subjective ones, you'd think it would be clear that doing things in reverse is just as fallacious.
Not really. Didn't we agree that materialism itself does involve the subjective, especially a basis of subjective assumptions? I am saying that the materialists are forced into judging the evidence by their own subjective standards, because there is an abscence of objective markers on such factors, by definition. There is no one set of subjective markers, and each leads to a different conclusion on this evidence. Hence, this evidence is perhaps irrelevant in this case. Even reasonable people disagree on what is reasonable... And while all materialists may not be reasonable, different views acheive different results. Hence my contention of the neccessity of prejudical feelings in this matter, and thus it's immunity to science.

Personally, I think psychology is both. It is first the inherent nature of the being, but then it's how that nature has been shaped physiology and its interaction with the environment.
There were three options. [:D]
But then, how does this fit in with what we are discussing about, ie. the lack of reference to immaterialism in science? Isn't psychology science's attempt to study enlightenment and the mind, and perhaps in the way you espoused?
Or am I just ridiculously confused? [:)]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
That's my point. I contend that by studying, you simply cannot understand it.


You are arguing all this without studying the phenomenon. If all you have is the history, that's what you study. If you have more, you study that.

Originally posted by FZ+
Isn't psychology science's attempt to study enlightenment and the mind, and perhaps in the way you espoused?

Psychology is not it, but rather about how the structure of the intellect, personality, conditioning, physiology and emotions all work together to create the psyche. Enlightenment is an elevation of consciousness above all that to a sort of structureless and very sensitive awareness, conscious oneness as I've called it.

You are never going to understand it speculating. I keep trying to explain that there is "something" to it, and you know I am not an idiot. It is as strange to our normal view of consciousness as relativity is to our notions of physical reality. You are going at it way too casually to ever see if there is something there or not. You know how hard people work to become a professional physicist, for instance? Well, people serious about enlightenment have worked even harder. There is a discipline to learn, a very specific way to approach, and it normally takes a lifetime to achieve some measure of it.

So then we experts come along and start applying all our objective skills to understand this rare subjective achievement. If it were that easy to grasp, it would have been noticed long ago by the masses. The real thing is very mysterious.

Originally posted by FZ+
. . . am I just ridiculously confused?

Yes.[;)]


I am leaving town for a week, see you then.

[Royce]

Les, once more I agree completely with you. As I see it Science first says that Religion is out side of the scope of science as it is subjective and threrefore not proveable or disproveable by the scientific method. In short they simply refuse to even look at it at all. That is fine with me and I agree that it is ouside the scope of pragmatic, materialistic science.
Then a number of proment and respected scientist state in a public media that there is no evidence that God, the soul or enlightment, near death experiences, whatever exists; therefore it does not exist. They never, to my knowlege, say that there is no evidence because we refuse to look for any evidence.
I don't think "physical scientist should be looking into relion, God or any of that as it is not scienticfically proveable. By the same token they should have sense enough and decency enough to keep there mouths shut on a topic they admit that they have no professional knowlege of or business commenting about.

[FZ+]

You are arguing all this without studying the phenomenon. If all you have is the history, that's what you study. If you have more, you study that.
But there's my point. Scientists do study it, but in no way can this study lead to proof or disproof of immateriality. Looking at people's beliefs only tells you what people believed in - part of the method of a historian is to check up on this belief by material referencing. What may be real experience of immateriality may equally be just evidence of the guilibility of the mind. (And rest assured, I did study it. And I am as inconclusive over it as ever) No matter which way you look at it, it can often just become a way of reflecting the studier's prejudices.

Psychology is not it, but rather about how the structure of the intellect, personality, conditioning, physiology and emotions all work together to create the psyche.
So we say the psyche, intellect etc are material entities...?

Enlightenment is an elevation of consciousness above all that to a sort of structureless and very sensitive awareness, conscious oneness as I've called it.
You see, you can never find evidence for this in science.

You are never going to understand it speculating. I keep trying to explain that there is "something" to it, and you know I am not an idiot.
*innocent look* When did I say that?
You're no idiot. If anybody is an idiot, it is I. So I'd better make sure no one is an idiot, then... [:)]
What I mean is that you can never explain a concept as "mysterious" of enlightenment, or the belief in enlightenment, by the evidence based method of science. You can never really make the leap of the subjective idea into a conclusion as to whether immateriality exists. You can't go from I believe to I know. Hence I am saying that it is unjustifiable to blame science for not finding immateriality (that's what I think we were talking about? [6)] ), because that sort of inconclusive mysteries are just not suited for science. It's not that they are not trying, or that they are twisted by bias or something, but that philosophically, the ideas of science - the need for predictions, falsifiability, material evidence, conclusions are just incompatiable. Whether *anything* can really find the truth behind immateriality is subject to another discussion. Can we agree for now that science cannot determine the reality of what is outside materiality, and that within science, there is no objective evidence for immateriality, or otherwise?

I am leaving town for a week, see you then.
I'll be waiting for you... Mwhaha.... Mwhahahaha!!![g)]

Royce:
Then a number of proment and respected scientist state in a public media that there is no evidence that God, the soul or enlightment, near death experiences, whatever exists; therefore it does not exist. They never, to my knowlege, say that there is no evidence because we refuse to look for any evidence.
Most of this is kinda what I am saying. (No really! I am serious!)
What I mean is that the ones which stand out from the crowd may not really represent the majority, and that the mistake they make is to transform lack of evidence to evidence of lack. And it's still not a matter of refusing to look for evidence, but that they just can't.

As I repeated stated: "Proven" immateriality has a habit of turning into newly discover materiality. Example: orbital system of solar system, electromagnetic forces.

I don't think "physical scientist should be looking into relion, God or any of that as it is not scienticfically proveable. By the same token they should have sense enough and decency enough to keep there mouths shut on a topic they admit that they have no professional knowlege of or business commenting about.
But I disagree completely here. Having a scientific background does not make you marked for incapability in philosophical discussions - any more than anyone else is incapable, one way or another. They have a right as do anyone else to express their opinions. Just that they should not use the argument that the lack of evidence in science is proof for the non-existence of anything else.

[Alexander]

Scientists define as "material" ALL that exists.

This means that immaterial things (god, angel, soul, etc) do not exist simply by definition of matter (=anything which exists).

[LogicalAtheist]

I don't think "physical scientist should be looking into relion, God or any of that as it is not scienticfically proveable. By the same token they should have sense enough and decency enough to keep there mouths shut on a topic they admit that they have no professional knowlege of or business commenting about.


Woh woh woh! I'm going to make this short sweet and numbered.

1. The world is entirely physical, meaning detectable and measurable. Therefore "physical scientist" would be the best person to go to regarding anything in reality. Not in your religious mythology you're so emotionally trapped in

2. "professional knowledge"? That's like saying one can have professional knowledge in levitation. It doesn't exist, therefore there's no such thing as KNOWLEDGE on such an imaginery subject. Get a grip here!

3. I say again, get a grip! Such a comment is so gross to the better side of humanity. Filled with more errors than I thought possible.

[Royce]

1. I disagree with your and Alexander's definition of of reality. There are immaterial thing in this world that do indeed exist that cannot be measured by a ruler or touched, felt or smelled. As I have said in other posts, I have yet to experience a material, Ie measurerable, touchable, smellable, thought, idea, beauty, love etc. The list is vertually endless. How can you call yourself a LOGICAL Atheist when logic is an abstract immaterial thing that according to you does not exist and has been proven by scientist not to exist. If you are in fact logical then how about using some once in a while. God, talk about knee jerk reactions. you are just as biased and emotionally trapped by your denial as you say I am by my mythical beliefs.

2. It is possible for even a physical, material , pragmatic, whatever scientist to have a professional position, opinion, belief, whatever and still hold a personal opinion or belief in the immaterial or spiritual reality. In short even some scientist personally believe in God but they try to keep it seperate from the professional life.

3. Huh? Is that emotional, an emotional response to something I said? That's totally illogical because emotions don't exist either as they are not material.

[FZ+]

1. I disagree with your and Alexander's definition of of reality. There are immaterial thing in this world that do indeed exist that cannot be measured by a ruler or touched, felt or smelled. As I have said in other posts, I have yet to experience a material, Ie measurerable, touchable, smellable, thought, idea, beauty, love etc. The list is vertually endless. How can you call yourself a LOGICAL Atheist when logic is an abstract immaterial thing that according to you does not exist and has been proven by scientist not to exist. If you are in fact logical then how about using some once in a while. God, talk about knee jerk reactions. you are just as biased and emotionally trapped by your denial as you say I am by my mythical beliefs.
What? Logic has been proven by scientists not to exist? Well, really... There is a major different between subjectively immaterial (concepts, which we use in the mind. ie. logic), and objectively immaterial, things that exist regardless of the mind. Subjectively immaterial is very much accepted by science. That's what hypotheses are in essence. Objectively immaterial cannot be proven one way or the other. I cannot prove that the universe is inherently logical, but I can show that logic exists in my head.

2. It is possible for even a physical, material , pragmatic, whatever scientist to have a professional position, opinion, belief, whatever and still hold a personal opinion or belief in the immaterial or spiritual reality. In short even some scientist personally believe in God but they try to keep it seperate from the professional life.
I think LA was commenting on the lack of existence of people being "professionally" qualified in immateriality.

[Royce]

FZ+, I'm almost sure that we agree. That is you and I according to our posts are saying much the same thing in different words.
What? That they don't exist because they have professional knowlege in the nonexistent immaterial or that there is a dire shortage of physical scientist that have professional knowlege of the immaterial.

My point sir, is that physical scientist study and have professional knowlege of the material world. They are not experts by their own admission of the immaterial, spiritual, psychological etc world. Just as many entertainers do, they use there statue and respect to make proclamations on a subject which they had previously said that they had no expertise in or "professional knowlege" of. They are in fact stating opinions and beliefs that are personal and no more or less valid and thought out than yours or mind; but, used their position to lend a false value and validity to their statements.

We have a pathora of experts in the immaterial. This PF is full of them as are the churches, universities etc., pastors preachers, priests, logisticians, philosophers psychiatrist and psychologist to name a few. But they of course are emotionally selfdeluded because according to LA they study that which does not exist and again according to LA; "therefore there's no such thing as KNOWLEDGE on such an imaginery subject."
"1. The world is entirely physical, meaning detectable and measurable. Therefore "physical scientist" would be the best person to go to regarding anything in reality. Not in your religious mythology you're so emotionally trapped in."

Alexander; "Scientists define as "material" ALL that exists.

This means that immaterial things (god, angel, soul, etc) do not exist simply by definition of matter (=anything which exists)."

Once again, a physical scientist has professional knowelge in physical reality but admit they have no professional knowlege in the immaterial.
I am in no way saying that the immaterial should not be studied by scientist, I think it must be. Nor am I saying the they do not have a right to expess their opinions on anything.
All I am saying is that on one hand or in one breath they say that we physical scientist cannot and do not study the immaterial as it is unproveable then on the other hand or breath they say that they do not have any evedence of imaterial things such as God, the soul etc.; therefore they do not exist. That is circler reasoning and using there good office to lend it credence. In other words "I refuse to look. I cannot look. I do not see anything because I do not and can not look. Ergo, in my proffesional opinion as a learned and respected scientist; IT DOES NOT EXIST."

That is BS.

I, possibly in error, extended there position that the immaterial does not exist to logically include such obvious immaterial things as logic itself. For that I apologize.

[FZ+]

We have a pathora of experts in the immaterial. This PF is full of them as are the churches, universities etc., pastors preachers, priests, logisticians, philosophers psychiatrist and psychologist to name a few. But they of course are emotionally selfdeluded because according to LA they study that which does not exist and again according to LA; "therefore there's no such thing as KNOWLEDGE on such an imaginery subject."
But you see, if you see these people have professional knowledge of the immaterial, then we also say that materialists have professional knowledge of the non-existence of the immaterial. I say that all these people have their own opinions, and as the nature of immaterial is to be unprovable, we cannot selectively promote anybody's belief to that of "knowledge".

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce
1. I disagree with your and Alexander's definition of of reality. There are immaterial thing in this world that do indeed exist that cannot be measured by a ruler or touched, felt or smelled. As I have said in other posts, I have yet to experience a material, Ie measurerable, touchable, smellable, thought, idea, beauty, love etc.

These are just chemical reactions and e/m pulses between neurons in brain. Easily measurable and controllable by sticking wires and extracting or adding chemicals.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce

Alexander; "Scientists define as "material" ALL that exists.

This means that immaterial things (god, angel, soul, etc) do not exist simply by definition of matter (=anything which exists)."

Once again, a physical scientist has professional knowelge in physical reality but admit they have no professional knowlege in the immaterial.


Once again, matter is BY DEFINITION ALL that exists. That is how definition work - instead of repeat over and over long combination of words (everything that exist) we simply nickname it "matter" - just to shorten a paperwork. And it does not matter that YOU do not agree with this definition. Definitions are not something to argue about. Definitions are simply equations in which right side (=matter) is SAME as left side (=all around us) by definition. Just for convenience of saving time and space. So you can't argue about definitions unless you lack logic.

So there are NO non-material things around. Thus, non-material things do NOT exist. Plain and simple logic.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
So there are NO non-material things around. Thus, non-material things do NOT exist. Plain and simple logic. Royce put up good point: logic is non-material.
Logic is God of scientists. Impersonal, fair, allpervading, allcreating, allknowing. Om.

[Royce]

This pile of hydrocarbons, water and trace inorganic chemicals refuses to beleive that the photons being emitted by a crt and being absorbed by chemicals in my retina generating electric pulses that travel to my brain causing more and different chemicals and electric charges do not contain information, possibly even intellegence if not logic even when I'm reading your posts re my posts.
I sir exist even though you refuse to acknowlege it. I am not simply a pile of chemicals. Art and beauty exist even it they are made out of wood cavas and pigment. Music can be beautiful even if it is only mechanical vibration creating pressure differentiations in a gaseous medium. Love is more than hormones. You have grossly overstated your position and are now trapped by your own absurdity.
There is much more to the universe, life and living than just matter and energy. To deny that truth is to deny you own existance which is an absurity. I know you exist just as I know I exist.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Once again, matter is BY DEFINITION ALL that exists. That is how definition work - instead of repeat over and over long combination of words (everything that exist) we simply nickname it "matter" - just to shorten a paperwork. And it does not matter that YOU do not agree with this definition. Definitions are not something to argue about. Definitions are simply equations in which right side (=matter) is SAME as left side (=all around us) by definition. Just for convenience of saving time and space. So you can't argue about definitions unless you lack logic.

So there are NO non-material things around. Thus, non-material things do NOT exist. Plain and simple logic.

Just a little remark.
Do you know the Standard Model?
Standard Model has 19+ unexplained parameters and mass is put in (via Higgs mechanism) "by hand".
They created an extra dimension just to make the theory working. Thus an assumption ...
In your vision ... this is just fantasy ?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Royce put up good point: logic is non-material.
Logic is God of scientists. Impersonal, fair, allpervading, allcreating, allknowing. Om.

Logic is material. Logic comes from observation that some quantities in our universe conserve.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Logic is material. Logic comes from observation that some quantities in our universe conserve. What we observe is logic of material. Where from comes the logic that causes some quantities conserve definitely doesn't come from our observation.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce
This pile of hydrocarbons, water and trace inorganic chemicals refuses to beleive that the photons being emitted by a crt and being absorbed by chemicals in my retina generating electric pulses that travel to my brain causing more and different chemicals and electric charges do not contain information, possibly even intellegence if not logic even when I'm reading your posts re my posts.




Not sure what you want to say here. I know that scientists do not rely on fluctuating (depending on chemical environment left by morning cofee shot or evening LSD shot) amplitude of e/m pulses in our brain (we call those pulses as "senses and emotions" when they (scientists) measure color or brightness of a star or a flower, pitch and duration of bird mating song or water temperature near Waikiki beach. They (scientists) use devices, not fluctuating emotional pulses.



I sir exist even though you refuse to acknowlege it. I am not simply a pile of chemicals.



We all are piles of interacting chemicals. This is experimental fact.



Art and beauty exist even it they are made out of wood cavas and pigment. Music can be beautiful even if it is only mechanical vibration creating pressure differentiations in a gaseous medium.



Beauty is a mathematical symmetry (and there are variety of specific symmetries in math).



Love is more than hormones.



Did I say that love is ONLY hormones? No. Hormones trigger many reactions which in turn trigger trains of certain pusles to various body and brain parts. Body parts then act, and brain parts recall associated memories accordingly. All this together is what we label as "love" or "caring behavior".



You have grossly overstated your position and are now trapped by your own absurdity.
There is much more to the universe, life and living than just matter and energy.

Any fact or observation to substantiate that?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration
Just a little remark.
Do you know the Standard Model?
Standard Model has 19+ unexplained parameters and mass is put in (via Higgs mechanism) "by hand".
They created an extra dimension just to make the theory working. Thus an assumption ...
In your vision ... this is just fantasy ?

What exactly is the question?

[Royce]

Alexander,
Logic is pure abstract thought. Math is pure abstract thought. Both have applications in the material, physical world and can be used to model or discribe what we see happening in the material world. But they are pure abstract thought invented, concieved and perfected by the mind of man. They are not of matter or by matter and contain no matter.
It has yet to be proved that thought has anything to do with the chemical/electrial charge happening in the human brain. That is only an assumption on your part. There are simular goings on in the brain of a frog but I don't believe that is has anything to do with logic or math.
According to your statement that only matter exists then thought, logic, math do not exist. Yet you attempt to support your position with the very logic that you proved does not exist.
Obviously that is not logical. Therefore you premise must be incorrect, that matter is all that exists in the universe, no matter= no existance.

[Royce]

Alexander, I have just finished rereading this thread. It is possible that I am making a wrong assumption that your statement
"Matter is all that exists" is exclusive as well as inclusive.
You statement that matter is all that exist may not also be saying that matter is ALL that exists. However you have also said that if it is not matter, it doesn't exist. We both keep repeating the same things over and over again. I am beginning to suspect that while we may think that we are talking about the same thing we may not be. My point is that there exist in this universe that which is material --Matter; AND, that which is immaterial -- thought, both subjective and abstract, beauty, love, mind seperated in concept at least from the physical brain etc.
Please remember that I am not attacking you, your logic or intellegence only your premise that is materialism in the extreme.
" Matter and only matter exists in the universe. That which is matter does not exist."
I am apparently not making myself clear when I mentioned "proffesional knowlege." I mean that professional knowlege is knowlege they have directly relating to there profession. If a scientist is a physical scientist then his professional knowlege is about the physical sciences. Of course he has knowlege other than about PS but that knowlege is personel knowlege not professional knowlege. I am not a scientist. I am an electronics technician who is now operationg and maintaining a flight simulator. My professional knowlege is about electronics and flight simulators. I have a lot of knowlege about a lot of other subjects as we all do but that is personal knowlege not proffesional. A psychologist has a lot of professional knowlege about personality disorders and mental functions of the brain/mind. One would have to agree that a theologian has a lot of professional knowlege about theology dispite ones beliefs or disbeliefs of theology.

[Alexander]

From webster dictionary:
matter: 1. That which makes up the substance of anything.

[Royce]

Very good, Alexander. Now look up the meaning of "anything" verus that of "everything."

[Alexander]

anything: 1.any thing whatever
2. AT ALL

everything: 1.all that exists.

[Royce]

Very good again, Alexander. Now notice that "anything" does not included "everything", but in logical set theory terms, the set of 'Anything' is a subset of the set of 'Everything.' This implies that there are other things in the set 'Everything' that are not included in the set 'Anything.' Thus we have:

Definition 1.: Matter - that which make up the substance of anything.

Definition 2.: Anything -1.any thing whatever
2. AT ALL

Definition 3.:Everything - 1.all that exists.

Theorem 1: Anything is a subset of the universal super set everything.

Postulate 1: The super set anything includes that which is not of the
set anything.

Conclusion: There exist in the superset Everything that which is
not of the set everything; therfore, there exists that
which is not made of matter.

I'm sure that you knew before hand where I was going with all this and I thank you for cooperating with me. The above is a sample of how formal logic is done. Very much like the math homework problems that we all had to do where we show every step and all the proofs required.
I was not being a smarta**. I was just using your position with your implied permission to demonstrate formal logic. It is irrefutable and thus logically proves my point and disproves your point by the very definitions that you supplied. Incidently this is called being hoisted by your own petard. It has happened to me a number of times.
So often in fact that I used to say of myself; "Open mouth. Change feet."
You are of course free to argue any and all points of the above but the only way you can logically dispute it is to say that the definitions that you supplied were not valid. Unfortunately this again invalidates your position.

As always with great respect,

[Alexander]

You logically got wrong conclusion simply because you started with INCORRECT assumption (that ANYTHING that exists is not same as EVERYTHING that exists).

Sorry for correction.

[Royce]

Reread your own definitions.
Everything is the universal super set of everything that exits.
There can only be one such set. The only other possible set is everything that does not exist, but that would be an empty set and that is not allowed as empty set is mutually exclusive, an oxymoron.
The set Anything does not contain everything. Look at the definitions Anything does not equal everything. The definition contains modifiers, ie "any" thing "AT" ALL. Everying contains no modifiers, every thing that exist. No where will you find any body to agree with you that the word 'any' and the word 'every' mean the same thing. They are not an identity.
I told you that the only way you could refute the conclusion is to try to change your definitions. I am not going to allow you to do that however in the way that you attemped to as it is meaningless and invalid.

[Alexander]

Wrong once again. You fail to realise that "everything" consists of ALL of "anythings" - look up their definitions.

Show me any "anything" which would not be a part of "everything", or "everything" which would NOT cover ALL of "anythings"?

[Royce]

Originally posted by Alexander
Wrong once again. You fail to realise that "everything" consists of ALL of "anythings" - look up their definitions.

Show me any "anything" which would not be a part of "everything", or "everything" which would NOT cover ALL of "anythings"?


No, Alexander I am not wrong.
Your fist statement is exactly what Theorem 1. says "The set Anything is a subset of the set Everything, ie Everything wholly contains all of Anythings. This concedes the truth of Theorem 1.
Your second statement is just a rewording of the first and again concedes the validity of the proof. the set Anything is a subset of the set Everything and wholly contained within the set Everything.
Your third statement is the definition of the universal super set Everything. The set Everything contains all things that exits wholly including all possible anythings.

The more you argue the more you support my position and the validity of my proof; and, the deeper the hole that you are digging for yourself. Try a different tack such as trying to find a different definition of matter that supports you position and underminds mine.
Or, heaven forbid, admit that I have proved my point and let's go on from there rather than argue in circles as we have been doing.

[Alexander]

Which point did you prove" That matter is NOT everything which exists? You have not proven that yet.

And you can't - simply because this is the DEFINITION of matter - every thing and any thing which exists around us is called matter. There is nothing you can do about definitions unless you want to abandon logic.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Which point did you prove" That matter is NOT everything which exists? You have not proven that yet.

And you can't - simply because this is the DEFINITION of matter - every thing and any thing which exists around us is called matter. There is nothing you can do about definitions unless you want to abandon logic.
Do you consider mathematics as matter?

[Royce]

Surely Alexander you know that photons and electromagnetic waves exist in this universe. They are not composed of matter and have no mass. This is the last I'm going to respond to on this subject. I am bored with belaboring a minor point with someone who will not or can accept the thoughts or logic of another as having any validity. You mind is made up and refuses to see any other possibility. You have a closed mind. That's a shame. It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration
Do you consider mathematics as matter?

Is mathematics a "thing" (object)?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce
Surely Alexander you know that photons and electromagnetic waves exist in this universe. They are not composed of matter and have no mass. This is the last I'm going to respond to on this subject. I am bored with belaboring a minor point with someone who will not or can accept the thoughts or logic of another as having any validity. You mind is made up and refuses to see any other possibility. You have a closed mind. That's a shame. It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye.

Don't you know that photons are MATTER? Being bosons they obey different statistics than fermions (electrons, protons), rather than that have same properties other particles have - they are wavy (as all particles), have spin, momentum, energy. What makes you think that photons are not matter?

By the way, if you place about 3x1035 of green photons in a massless box, the box will acquire mass 1 kg. (Both inertial mass and gravitational mass).

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Don't you know that photons are MATTER? Being bosons they obey different statistics than fermions (electrons, protons), rather than that have same properties other particles have - they are wavy (as all particles), have spin, momentum, energy. What makes you think that photons are not matter?

By the way, if you place about 3x1035 of green photons in a massless box, the box will acquire mass 1 kg. (Both inertial mass and gravitational mass).

First, in all my physics books fields are not considered matter, nor is energy. (Though I'll acknowledge that a field results from material processes, and energy is intimately invovlved in materiality.)

Second, you are the one who asserted that matter is everything; it is not up to us to disprove that, it is up to you to prove it. Can you prove consciousness, for example, is matter?

[Alexander]

Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c2 kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c2 kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Mass?

The 2000 edition of "Modern Physics" states plainly that a field is "immaterial."

And you didn't mention consciousness.

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.

The reason you have me on "block" and still take potshots is because you are afraid to debate anyone who is going to call you on your arrogance, rudeness and failure to reason properly.

You've already demostrated you don't know much about physics with your comments on QM and GR. Do you think you understand fields? Consciousness? If so, then make your case LA, and stop prancing around saying things are so without feeling the slightest responsiblity to explain why. Or is it you think you are God, and we should all just accept your word?

Again I ask, what sort of science training have you had where you don't have to support your assertions with evidence? Speaking in absolutes as you do is no different than debating someone spouting religious dogma.

[LogicalAtheist]

...and I suggest you do the same. It makes this place much more purposefull!

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c2 kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Plus, since you appear to be talking about EM, I might point out that light isn't energy, but rather carries energy. You can measure light's energy, for example, by its frequency. As Integral made rigidly clear to me at the last PF, energy has no defining characteristics other than the capacity to do work. So all the traits you assigned to energy above belong to EM, and not to energy (which is immaterial!).

[FZ+]

Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.

Pedantic!!!!!!!!!

I agree with your view of what's material, and actually I think fields and energy are material-related even if they lack mass. But you must admit comrade Alexander starts the pedantic trend with his strict limiting of any discussion of reality to what math or physics can explain.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Mass?



Yes, m=E/c2 kilos.



And you didn't mention consciousness.

You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K+ ions exchange with Na+ ions - what is special about this?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, m=E/c2 kilos.



You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K+ ions exchange with Na+ ions - what is special about this?

Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about? Are there any truths left to uncover from your perspective? Or is everything already explained perfectly in your science book? If it is the latter,(and it does seem to be), then we can fire all scientists. We don't need them anymore. They have found all the answers! There's nothing left to do. It's all very simple! Just ask Alexander!

Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander![o)]

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Alexander
- what is special about this? YOU !

[pelastration]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pelastration
Do you consider mathematics as matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Alexander
Is mathematics a "thing" (object)?

Is this supposed to be an answer?
The old trick: answer with a question [6)]
So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?

As long as you don't answer seriously I will consider that your point of view is that mathematics don't exist because it's not 'matter'.

And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':

Originally posted by Alexander
It does. Look at the universe - it is quite math obedient. Very and very much. Why? Very simple. Because math is NOT a language. Math is just a logic of existence/ inexistence. That is why anything existing obeys math.


1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?


Originally posted by Alexander
Obviousely math is valid without humans and with or without aliens from planet X. Math of all civilizations is the same (despite variety of notations used). Pithagorean theorem (sin2+cos2=1) is same with or without humans/aliens/robots, etc. Shredinger or Maxwell equations are same anywhere in universe, and their solution (say, a hydrogen atom, or mutual inductance of two coils) is same in any notations used.

Since 4. was anticipating on this answer I ask again:
"Are mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality ?"

In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).

6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!
So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' [:D] ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?

I have more questions ... but I will be very pleased if you can answer already now the Questions 1 to 6 - point by point. [6)]

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about?



Yes, there is some. For example, if a free-falling electron radiate (e/m radiation)? (Most physicists say yes (as it moves with acceleration), but I thing not because free falling system is indistinguishable from not moving with any acceleration system).



Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander![o)]

I don't know.

May be, because I read textbooks?

[Zero]

I've made this same point on several threads over teh years, so stop me if you've heard this one:

The fact that most scientists are not deeply religious says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the validity of religion. It doesn't speak to the greater natural intelligence of scientists, or a lower level of intelligence of theists. All it really shows is that scientists, especially top ones, are focused on their method to answer questions. I would hazard a guess that they became scientists because 'magical' thinking didn't suit them, not that being a scientist made them abandon religious thinking.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration


So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?



Mathematics is a set of logical rules. It is NOT a "thing". Recall that we discuss objects (everyTHING, anyTHING), not concepts.


And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':




1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?



1. Yes. 2. Because math governs physical reality, it is a (conceptual) part of it. 3. Yes, of course. 4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false. Axioms are just initial conditions from which theorems (=conclusions) derived. You can start with any initial condition(s) you want.


In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).



The difference is that math allows indistinguishable particles to bahave only 2 specific ways (only 2, because square root has only 2 values - positive and negative). The existence of two solutions for a square root makes two DIFFERENT statistics. One is called bosonian, another - fermionian. Nature just simply obeys that. Quoting second citation from above: "...the interchange symmetry DIFFERENCE makes fermions behave like matter and bosons behave like energy. The fact that no two fermions can be in the same state means they take up space, unlike bosons. It is also related to the fact that fermions can only be created in conjunction with anti-fermions. They must be made in pairs. Bosons can be made singly and are their own anti-particle as can be seen from any light."



6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!



You are very welcome. (I probably have to charge for educating people - then I will be rich. Well, what if I am already rich? Share with the poor? That is what I do.)



So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' [:D] ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?



Where did you get this nonsense? Math is just a logic of existence.

[Hurkyl]

4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false.

Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.

[LogicalAtheist]

An axiom can ONLY be true. A false axiom is NOT an axiom. How one can make this mistake I don't know.

[plus]

Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within newtonian gravity.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by plus
Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within newtonian gravity.

False axiom /=/ axiom

Thus if you have a false axiom in your theory, you have NO axiom in your theory.

An axiom can be ONLY TRUE. NOT FALSE. If you have in your theory what you call an axiom, which is then disproven, you never had an axiom in your theory.

[Hurkyl]

And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false. [;)]

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false. [;)]

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)


Hurkyl. The definition of an axiom states it can't be false. End of story.

[Hurkyl]

(a) Mathematical logic cannot even formulate the assertion "Statement P cannot be false"; the closest it comes is to deduce "not P", to prove "P is true", or to prove "not P is false".

(b) There is no restriction on what logical statements may be taken as an axiom. Any collection of logical statements generates a logical theory for which those logical statements are considered axioms.

End of story.

(If you'll allow me also to abuse the phrase)

[LogicalAtheist]

Say what you will, you bring no proof. I do.

ax·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n. A self-evident or universally recognized truth

[Hurkyl]

And given that definition, pray tell how you deduce an axiom cannot be false, using just mathematical logic?

[Zero]

Hmmmm...in math, axioms are usually absolute: 1+1=2. In real life, axioms are a bit more slippery, don't you think?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.

I would rather say that "true" and "false" can only apply to theorems (=logical derivatives from axioms) and other constructs, but can't be applied to such primitive logical object as axiom yet. Axioms are initial statements from which more complex structures are derived (and then those complex structures are compared with axioms to see if they are in agreement with them (=true) or if there was a logical mistake in derivation (false conclusion)). True and false are comparison operators, and when you have nothing to compare with, then these operators don't apply yet.

[Hurkyl]

But what might happen is that you can start with a system of axioms and then correctly deduce the negation of one of those axioms. ("correctly" means that the only premises you used are the given axioms and logical rules of inference)

By a typical definition of "true", the axioms of a theory are taken to be true, and all statements that logically follow from them are true (and nothing else). By a typical definition of "false", a statement is false if and only if its negation is true.

Since it may happen that the negation of an axiom can be deduced from the axioms, an axiom thus may be both true and false.


Of course, the usual procedure is to thus abandon that system of axioms and find a new system that appears to work better (such as when Cantor's set theory was replaced with Zermelo-Frankel set theory), but as Godel's theorem shows, we can never use the axioms of any reasonable theory to prove that we cannot derive the negation of one of the axioms; the spectre of potential inconsistency must alway loom over our head.


This is interesting because it means mathematical logic is incapable of the circular reasoning typically used in other domains to justify belief systems (i.e. religion, mysticism, and science).

Among other things, this means that any belief system professing to adhere completely to logic must not assert that it is a consistent belief system. This is why I find many atheistic fundamentalists' arguments comical; they love to assert that they are strictly logical while religion cannot adhere strictly to logic... but then they will turn right around and tell you that their belief system is consistent (of course, not in those exact words)

[Alexander]

Define "consistent".

Religion is full of internal inconsistensies. There are many lists of them around. Take a Bible, for example, http://www.quran.net/comp-std/cntrbibl.htm

[Hurkyl]

Consistency := ~(P and ~P)

Science is full of internal inconsistencies too. Why is it that when science has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to find a mistake in your understanding and refine it, but when religion has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to abandon religion?

[Alexander]

Because inconsistency is in brain.

(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).

[Hurkyl]

Because inconsistency is in brain.

That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?


(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).

The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!


Before you respond, consider a bigger picture. You, as a scientist, are about to give a lecture on the reasons why some of these alledged inconsistencies are okay, and how the others represent a state of incomplete knowledge that science is striving to correct. Now, consider that Christian theists (and probably other religious theists) often respond to alledged inconsistencies in Religous thought by explaining how some of the inconsistencies aren't real inconsistencies, but stem from a misinterpretation, and respond to others as the state of an incomplete knowledge of God.

I presume also that you do not have an education in theism. You have, at best, an outsiders knowledge of the hot issues, heavily biased by your presumption from the outset that religion is idiocy. I also presume if you have seen the arguments of those educated in religion that you have dismissed them after a casual reading rather than taken them seriously and deeply considered if they could be right.

So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?


Sure. Religion is a brain product (imagination which is not based in facts nor logic), that is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: BigFootSanta created all toys we see around us). Same with misunderstanding science, or with layman view of it - inconsistensy is in layman brain only simply because layman brain does not know science.



The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!



There is no inconsistency here. Same as there is no inconsistency between round and flat Earth - every farmer, engineer, student, and almost every scientists successfully uses flat Earth math (just because small fraction of round is flat).



I presume also that you do not have an education in theism.



Correct, I did not waste time on santaclausology. Instead, I learned how nature works.

[Alexander]

[i]Originally posted by Hurkyl So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion? [/B]

From this web site: "Several hundred never before seen galaxies are visible in this "deepest-ever" view of the universe, called the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), made with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Besides the classical spiral and elliptical shaped galaxies, there is a bewildering variety of other galaxy shapes and colors that are important clues to understanding the evolution of the universe. Some of the galaxies may have formed less that one billion years after the Big Bang."

What is inconsistent here?

[Hurkyl]

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.


Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.


Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.


See - you claims are based on LACK of facts (equinoxal eggs, he he, Christianity, Bible, etc). Mine - on facts. Because a truth is defined as a compliance with fact, I am telling truth and you are telling false. Just logic, dude, logic.

Religion is untested view of primitive people - as someone here said.

You put yourself in a corner simply because you don't know the definition of truth. Read dictionary - criteria of truth is observed fact (Marx).

[Hurkyl]

Just logic, dude, logic.

Slight problem. Logic provides only rules of inference, and there isn't even universal agreement amongst mathematicians what the correct set of rules of inference is.

So how can you claim any fact whatosever from "just logic"?



And it would do wonders for your case if you could present an argument for someone who doesn't currently believe exactly what you believe.

[Alexander]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic. All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth. Say, many religion claims contradict to observable facts (say, 6000 year old Earth, or making Sun in 1 day, or making man out of clay, etc). Thus they are not true.

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?


All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth.

The definition of "true" in formal logic is merely one of the two values in the range of a truth assignment, which is merely a function from a domain of formulas (a.k.a. elements of some mathematical language) into the set {true, false}.


Your post begs two questions:

(a) What do you mean by "fact"?
(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?


What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?


(a) What do you mean by "fact"?



fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.


Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.




(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?



From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?

Well, if you don't derive any fact from logic, I'm speculating as to why you would believe a statement would be a fact.

You seem to have asserted previously that logic is the only valid form of proof.
You don't prove facts with logic.
I presume that you believe that statements you claim as fact are indeed fact.
Faith is belief without proof.

Conclusion: Any beliefs you have of the form "X is a fact" must be derived from faith.

Is this accurate, or am I missing something?


fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

So, what is a real occurence, and how can we base knowledge or information upon it?


From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

Ok, so your definition bears little resemblance to the logical definition of truth. As such, it would be inappropriate to use your definition of truth in an alledged logical argument against Religion.

And if you're allowed to select your own definition of truth apart from the logical definition, can you give a reason why a religious person cannot select their own definition of truth and have their arguments just as valid as yours?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Saint
Quote:

Leading scientists still reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.


Many contemporary religions believe an act of creation by an omnipotent deity gave birth to the infinite cosmos.

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theological theories begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must certainly have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy with the assertion that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course, when the laws of nature are discarded anything is possible, even the absurd. There are attributes of the Universe which are beyond logic, but they are not immune from natural laws. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to argue against logic, itself, and no rational theory can be crafted in the absence of reason.

[New-Prototype]

I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but religion is a sham! I belive that these thoughts and beliefs were only created so the people in the church can make money. Humans need things to believe in, especially if it explains things that we do not understand. For instance, spontaneous generation was a belief used to explain how flies seem to come out of rotting food and eels from mud (errr at i think it was eels). And well, just like God he might have been an idea thought up by someone in attempt to explain how life came into existance. But the idea and belief itself has flaws that proves that there is no God; however, there are still incidents in this world that disproves people of their opinions that there is no God.

Such as how do you explain a dramatic improvement in a patient who was supposed to die because they had no way of being revived or cured (a mircale)? And what about that talking baby that got borned?! It was all over the chinese newspapers, you know? The child was given birth and then when it was held by it's parents it said something about warding off SARS by eating greens before 12 AM that night. And after it gave it's message, the infant died. How can you explain something as supernatural as that? (And it did happen, it was front page news)[8)]

But yet, how can there an omnipotent ruler like God who could see all and know all? That is just obscure and impossible (hope i used that word right). If there is a God who loves his people so much, why is crime increasing in this world? And if human-life was created by God why does research show that we may have evolved from the prime-ape family such as the rangatang (i can't spell the ape's name but u know what i mean. I hope). Besides, scientists believe that the first forms of life was cyannobacteria, which then later evolved into more complex life forms. See that? [6)]

(This reply is so long....) [zz)]

[TENYEARS]

Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed. Your choices and band wagon jumping will destroy the planet. When you wail and nothing happens. Tough. Eat of your self consoling beliefs then. When the oceans turn to sludge, and the skys darken will you remember. I doubt it. Unconciousness is born to repeat itself. It is not be nature of what we are but of now we use that which we are made the will change this life or not.

You take your 400 1000 1,000,000 scientists. They are less than nothing to me.

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed. Your choices and band wagon jumping will destroy the planet. When you wail and nothing happens. Tough. Eat of your self consoling beliefs then. When the oceans turn to sludge, and the skys darken will you remember. I doubt it. Unconciousness is born to repeat itself. It is not be nature of what we are but of now we use that which we are made the will change this life or not.

You take your 400 1000 1,000,000 scientists. They are less than nothing to me.


Uh huh...I'll take facts over fantasy, anyday.

[TENYEARS]

See now you are lying to me.

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
See now you are lying to me.

Nope, try again, this time without eating the magic mushrooms, ok?

[radagast]

Originally posted by New-Prototype
I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but religion is a sham! I belive that these thoughts and beliefs were only created so the people in the church can make money.

While your beliefs are your own, you use the term religion as if it is the same as theistic or having/worshiping a deity. This is not the case.

You you believe that religion was created for people to make money then perhaps you should study a little anthropology. Primative peoples had religions before he had money. This neither increases nor decreases the probability that (a) religion is correct, but it does poke a hole in the profit as the motive for religion creation belief.

[FZ+]

Good post radagast.

Yes, to label religion or irrational beliefs are money making shams is a gross oversimplification of the scenario. While it can be demonstrably true for certain beliefs (scientology ring a bell?), it can't be laid on as a blanket statement. To deny the genuine belief of the majority is a fruitless route to take.

New-prototype: While I agree that belief is something that is almost instinctive in man, I would put caution on the idea of disproving god. While science can shatter the conclusions of much of religion when it comes to what can be observed, it is often impossible to disprove any god from a spiritualist/metaphorical direction. The only conclusion that can be made is that the lack of evidence means there is no basis for belief in god.

Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed.
Here we go again. You puzzle me TENYEARS. If you only express such contempt for other people who attempt to look for the facts, and have such stubborn and irrational faith in your own ideas, while do you butt in like this at all? Why do you post, if you already proclaim that however many scientific proofs, and error checking and nothing to you? Why, while you reject the scientific method and the progressive, open thinking it stands for, do you pretend to be open minded? How, when you do not even appear to understand what science means, can you even criticise?
There may be hope for you yet.

(BTW, where's that prediction you said you were going to send me?)

[Iacchus32]

God (which is good) + greed (human ambition) = charlatan. This is the problem right here ... for "Many will come in my name to lead many astray."

Indeed it is much better to pose it as an open question and leave it at that -- thereby creating "a vacuum" -- than to play Russian Roulette with a potentially loaded weapon. I believe TENYEARS said something to this effect in another thread.

While we all know how Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, indeed, therefore if we learn how to pose the question, while holding our ground, and remaining humble and sincere (this is very important too), the answer should be forthcoming.

But we must understand, this is a means by which to address the question "internally." However, there may be a means by which Science can address this in an "external sense" as well? Perhaps by learning how to be "intuitive" and applying that to our experiments?

[TENYEARS]

You know I don't reject science, science is in accordance with the truth the only problem is science is not completely understood. I could do the gravity thing here, but not. If you knew what I know you would know why I have such great disdain for many so called scientists. I will send you what I promised - my gut feeling said not to send it then.

[Zero]

God (which is fictional) + greed (human ambition) = Christian. This is the problem right here ... for "Many will quote the Bible, as though it were anything other than fiction"

Indeed it is much better to pretend to be deep, and stick with fables, than to play Russian Roulette with actual facts, since most of them make a religious viewpoint seem foolish.

While we all know how Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, indeed, therefore if we learn how to pose the question, while holding our ground, and remain as obscure as possible, no one will be able to disprove our fantasies.

But we must understand, this is a means by which to address the question "internally." By 'Internally', we mean "in a way that makes no logical sense", therefore it cannot ever be disproven.

[Iacchus32]

What are you afraid someone might actually believe what I have to say? Pretty well put don't you think? [;)]

Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining as obscure as possible?" Do you mean that Science shouldn't begin to explore the possibilities of intuition? And yet it's a well known fact that it exists.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are you afraid someone might actually believe what I have to say? Pretty well put don't you think? [;)]

Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining as obscure as possible?" Do you mean that Science shouldn't begin to explore the possibilities of intuition? And yet it's a well known fact that it exists.

LOL, you don't present anything for us to actually believe in, so I have no fear at all!

"Intuition" exists...as a function of a bioelectric and biochemical process of the brain. It isn't magic, it is simply a way that the subconcious processes existing information in interesting ways.

[TENYEARS]

Zero, where exactly did you get that the good morning coffee club knowlege of the day. Is this a thought you brought into being yourself?

[radagast]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
You know I don't reject science, science is in accordance with the truth the only problem is science is not completely understood.

Science is pretty well understood, it's what science studies that is not always well understood. If it was, then we would understand all there is to know about objective reality.


I could do the gravity thing here, but not. If you knew what I know you would know why I have such great disdain for many so called scientists. I will send you what I promised - my gut feeling said not to send it then.

I can't help but get the feel you are dancing around a 'God of the Gaps' argument. Yes, a number of things are not known, but to somehow use god to explain this is a serious violation of Occams razor.

The neat thing about science, is that no matter how you feel about a given scientist and what they have to say, over the long run, the system (science) is self-correcting.

If you are speaking of what a scientist has to say about god (specifically say christian, but not a fundamentalist view) then they are outside the area of science, therefore not an authority (by virtue of scientific training). Science can only address things which falsifiable predictions can be made. For example, the (current) Catholic view of god is outside the domain of science because there are no testable and falsifiable predications about him/her that can me made.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, you don't present anything for us to actually believe in, so I have no fear at all!

"Intuition" exists...as a function of a bioelectric and biochemical process of the brain. It isn't magic, it is simply a way that the subconcious processes existing information in interesting ways. Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless. [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless. [;)]

Why is rational explanation 'not logical'?

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Zero, where exactly did you get that the good morning coffee club knowlege of the day. Is this a thought you brought into being yourself?

What does that mean? 'brought into being myself'? All thoughts are our own, and all thoughts are a function of the influences we are exposed to. I take only partial credit.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless. [;)]

Bold statement, but just that until you can back it up.

Though the following isn't specific to you, Iacchus32, it has amazed me how many flat statements are made here with absolutely no justification. If something is given as an explanation of something they believe, I can see that. But to, in effect, simply say 'your wrong' with zero justification, smacks of forums a lot less prestigious than a physics forum.

As a fan of informal logic and argumentation I saw nothing that violated any rules of inference. Perhaps you could enlighten us further. Now that I think about it, there was no 'argument' presented, so no possibility of violating rules of inference, so exactly how could it be illogical? Wrong, quite possibly, but illogical?.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
As a fan of informal logic and argumentation I saw nothing that violated any rules of inference. Perhaps you could enlighten us further. Now that I think about it, there was no 'argument' presented, so no possibility of violating rules of inference, so exactly how could it be illogical? Wrong, quite possibly, but illogical?. I only say this because I think this is how Zero -- being the "logical" person that he is -- "feels" about intuition. It works from the "other side" of the brain, therefore he can't claim that it's logical. But "interesting" nonetheless. [;)]

Oh, and please feel free to drop by my thread on What is Irrational? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3212)

[radagast]

I would agree that intuition isn't logical, but I wouldn't claim much of the natural functioning of the brain would be. It's only when we constrain it by specific rules, such as math, formal/informal logic, or perhaps certain areas of law, would I even hazard a guess that you can count on things being logical - of course I could be misinterpreting you meaning.

By the same token, I do accept (as true/probable) that intuition works from concrete, real world, brain functioning. That it's not some kind of metaphysically caused action.

I do feel people believe they act and think rationally, yet under close scrutiny, if emotion or ego is involved, they are rarely very logical. The folks on a.a.m pride themselves on their use and employment of logic, yet time and time again I've seen them make the same errors their detractors do.

I'll check out the thread soon, but it isn't small so...