Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

  • Thread starter Saint
  • Start date
  • #1
Saint
417
0
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
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
FZ+
1,599
3
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.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
heusdens
1,736
0
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?
 
  • #4
wuliheron
2,135
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
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.
 
  • #6
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
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.
 
  • #7
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
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...:wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #8
FZ+
1,599
3


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.:wink: 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #9


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...:wink:

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.
 
  • #10
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1


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.
Hmm... Don't provoke me !
I don't visit that forum, but I can make
much greater fun of people if I see this
one needs defence... :wink:

Peace and long life.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by drag
Hmm... Don't provoke me !
I don't visit that forum, but I can make
much greater fun of people if I see this
one needs defence... :wink:

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

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??
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
Fliption
1,081
1
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. :frown:

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.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #14
I am not insulting, I just state facts.

Is telling a child (who belives in Santa) that Santa does not exist an insult?
 
  • #15
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2


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.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Fliption
1,081
1
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.
 
  • #17
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by Fliption
So comparing someone's belief to an obvious
fiction like Santa is also an insult.
Hey !
How dare you say Santa is a fiction ?!
 
  • #18
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).
 
  • #19
FZ+
1,599
3
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? :wink:

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.
 
  • #20
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?
 
  • #21
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Fliption
1,081
1
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:wink:
 
  • #23
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.
 
  • #24
FZ+
1,599
3
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. :wink: 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?)
 
  • #25
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
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."

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
FZ+
1,599
3
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.
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? :smile:
 
  • #27
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
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.:wink:


I am leaving town for a week, see you then.
 
  • #28
Royce
1,514
0
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.
 
  • #29
FZ+
1,599
3
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... :smile:
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? ), 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!!!

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.
 
  • #30
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).
 
  • #31
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.
 
  • #32
Royce
1,514
0
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.
 
  • #33
FZ+
1,599
3
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.
 
  • #34
Royce
1,514
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
FZ+
1,599
3
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".
 

Suggested for: Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
263
Replies
6
Views
183
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
700
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
862
Replies
1
Views
346
Replies
5
Views
698
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
647
Replies
4
Views
504
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
810
Top