scientist who believes in God

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

that doesn't answer my question at all. you're just saying that's not a legit concept of god becos you dont want to believe in god. do you refuse to even acknowledge that many people believe and worship a god that has nothing to do with the personal christian deity? buddhism and hinduism are almost animistic religions. so is wicca. form there it's a very small leap to god as the universe. regardless of the origin of the term god, it has expanded well beyond the constraints of judeo-christian deity.

There is not point in calling the Universe God. It's only purpose is to exagerate the universe.

soulsinging

lucylespian wrote:

That's pretty fair though, I do the same thing. I couch my arguments in terms of Christain theology becasue that is the dominant theme in God worship, or atetndidng to God. It is certainly the dominant theme in modern conservative thought that threatens teh freedom of thought and action of athiests.
I also do it becasue it is more amusing than a blank denial of "God does not exist". A more complex argument requires that I allow for the possibility, in order to discuss why that possibility is not realised, thus bringing me to introduce elelments of Christian theology. When I go to Old Testmanet stuf, people just go, that old testament, we don't sacrifice our children, put out eyes, or rape our brothers widows anymore.

but you're picking an easy target. christian theology is not the dominant theme in god worship. there are hundreds of religions and christianity is only one and a declining one at that. yes, they are the most politically active in the west, but disproving christianity does not prove atheism. just as pointing out the holes in evolutionary theory does nor prove creationism. you cannot support your view with negative proof. why not try arguing against buddhist thought, or wicca, or taoism?

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

There is not point in calling the Universe God. It's only purpose is to exagerate the universe.

i see. i dont know what else i expected from you.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

but you're picking an easy target. christian theology is not the dominant theme in god worship. there are hundreds of religions and christianity is only one and a declining one at that. yes, they are the most politically active in the west, but disproving christianity does not prove atheism. just as pointing out the holes in evolutionary theory does nor prove creationism. you cannot support your view with negative proof. why not try arguing against buddhist thought, or wicca, or taoism?

umm, they are atheists?

You are an atheist too, but you make up some God that does nothing to avoid being an atheist. I don't get it man.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

umm, they are atheists?

You are an atheist too, but you make up some God that does nothing to avoid being an atheist. I don't get it man.

buddhists, hindus, and wiccans are atheists?

i did not make up any god and im not avoiding being an atheist. i was for a long time. eventually, it stopped making any sense to me... it didn't fit what i saw in the world or my own experience. my only opposition to atheism is the same as my opposition to christianity: a claim to absolute knowledge of the unknowable.

lucylespian

soulsinging wrote:

but you're picking an easy target. christian theology is not the dominant theme in god worship. there are hundreds of religions and christianity is only one and a declining one at that. yes, they are the most politically active in the west, but disproving christianity does not prove atheism. just as pointing out the holes in evolutionary theory does nor prove creationism. you cannot support your view with negative proof. why not try arguing against buddhist thought, or wicca, or taoism?

Cos they are not on this board presenting their beliefs, mostly.
The political activity is something that draws fire from me. Liberalism is self-threatening by definition, becasue it allows the growth of elelments which would destroy it, but conservatism crushes them. I'm just doing a bit of liberalism standing up for itself, and protecting it's cave, so to speak.
Also I don't know as much about the other religions you mentioned, so to comment about them is worse than ignorance. Though I am an athiest, I have reasonable knowledge of christain theology.

Ahnimus

lucylespian wrote:

Cos they are not on this board presenting their beliefs, mostly.
The political activity is something that draws fire from me. Lebealism is self-threatening by definition, becasue it allows the growth of elelments which would destroy it, but conservatism crushes them. I'm just doing a bit of liberalism standing up for itself, and protecting it's cave, so to speak.
Also I don't know as much about them, so to comment about them is worse than ignorance. Though I am an athiest, I have reasonable knowledge of christain theology.

Buddhists are also atheists.

lucylespian

soulsinging wrote:

buddhists, hindus, and wiccans are atheists?

i did not make up any god and im not avoiding being an atheist. i was for a long time. eventually, it stopped making any sense to me... it didn't fit what i saw in the world or my own experience. my only opposition to atheism is the same as my opposition to christianity: a claim to absolute knowledge of the unknowable.

Aw man, who evere said we had absolute knowledge of anything ?? Not me , that's for sure. I only yearn for relative knowledge, but even that is ebnough to satisfy me that God has as much chance of existence as the Easter Bunny.

My refence point is teh Hubble photos of the Pillars of Creation. Massive nebulae of cosmic dust light years in dimension where you can see stars being born. The possibility of a power vast enough to create that with a thought and a wave of the hand is small enough to be approaching 1/infinnity.

angelica

lucylespian wrote:

What other traits does he really have ?? All that good cop/bad cop stuff he does, judgement, etc etc, all human traits, nothing really new as the whole pantheon goes, just crazy human shit justified by godhood.

What I was saying is that I would believe in Einstein's or Spinoza's God, except for the fact that "he" personalized himself in my experience and nudged me out of my usual programming. Along the way, this energy, has intelligently shown me numerous things. So I refer to the biblical God in the sense of being that personalized God that teaches mystical types. My understandings are based on my experiences with it. In my experience it Is about beautiful, mind-boggling Ideals, and not about the dyfunctioning shallow human traits It is usually ascribed such as anger, jealousy, etc.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

What I was saying is that I would believe in Einstein's or Spinoza's God, except for the fact that "he" personalized himself in my experience and nudged me out of my usual programming. Along the way, this energy, has intelligently shown me numerous things. So I refer to the biblical God in the sense of being that personalized God that teaches mystical types. My understandings are based on my experiences with it. In my experience it Is about beautiful, mind-boggling Ideals, and not about the dyfunctioning shallow human traits It is usually ascribed such as anger, jealousy, etc.

IMO, the biblical God actually permeates anger, jealousy, pride, envy and so on.

The Bible teaches two contradictory concepts, free-will and determinism (God's Plan). The emphasis is placed on free-will, that one has the ultimate choice to choose the path of Good or Evil and the Bible describes what these paths are. The intentions of this may be good on an individual basis, it gives one incentives to make good choices. However, in a social context this paradigm is detrimental. Perhaps something not considered at the time of it's creation.

catefrances

you know the thought processes used to evaluate science can not be applied in the valuation and validation of God. different thought processes must come into play.

soulsinging

lucylespian wrote:

Aw man, who evere said we had absolute knowledge of anything ?? Not me , that's for sure. I only yearn for relative knowledge, but even that is ebnough to satisfy me that God has as much chance of existence as the Easter Bunny.

My refence point is teh Hubble photos of the Pillars of Creation. Massive nebulae of cosmic dust light years in dimension where you can see stars being born. The possibility of a power vast enough to create that with a thought and a wave of the hand is small enough to be approaching 1/infinnity.

then what did create that? i dont believe anything waves its hand to create it either, but i dont know what else could have.

soulsinging

lucylespian wrote:

Cos they are not on this board presenting their beliefs, mostly.
The political activity is something that draws fire from me. Liberalism is self-threatening by definition, becasue it allows the growth of elelments which would destroy it, but conservatism crushes them. I'm just doing a bit of liberalism standing up for itself, and protecting it's cave, so to speak.
Also I don't know as much about the other religions you mentioned, so to comment about them is worse than ignorance. Though I am an athiest, I have reasonable knowledge of christain theology.

that's a whole other debate. i can assure you the christians around here hate me becos i go off on them when they start talking about religious politics nothing makes me more angry than someone who justifies their voting by saying it's what their preacher told them to do.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

IMO, the biblical God actually permeates anger, jealousy, pride, envy and so on.

The Bible teaches two contradictory concepts, free-will and determinism (God's Plan). The emphasis is placed on free-will, that one has the ultimate choice to choose the path of Good or Evil and the Bible describes what these paths are. The intentions of this may be good on an individual basis, it gives one incentives to make good choices. However, in a social context this paradigm is detrimental. Perhaps something not considered at the time of it's creation.

I will never forget the revelations that were swimming in my head last night. My current understanding is that at the level of profound truths, the opposite to a profound truth is another profound truth (credit to the amazing Mr Niels Bohr for that!) I have no problem harmonizing the "conflicting" concepts of free-will and determinism. I agree that with the bible beliefs you mention, that we have the choice to choose from the ideal option and the less ideal option at all times, and the consequences of our actions help us learn and evolve. I believe we are this one collective Soul ( ), individualized into varying perspectives. We are truly never free from being part of a much bigger picture with purposes beyond our individuality. And yet our individuality is a crucial part of this process.

All that anger stuff was about humans projecting their own unconscious flaws on this God. During my spiritual experiences, my "revelations" were perfect, Divine, and amazing, but the minute I consider them, or talk about them, etc, I distort them. Sort of like when we look at the quantum world and affect it by our effort to understand it. When I talk about this stuff, I cannot do it justice. My words are so far removed from the truth that it's frustrating.

lucylespian

soulsinging wrote:

then what did create that? i dont believe anything waves its hand to create it either, but i dont know what else could have.

I dunno, that's pretty ineffable, totally ineffable actually, but it's existence causes me to wonder, nto to confine the answer to the paltry tale of Creation !!

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I will never forget the revelations that were swimming in my head last night. My current understanding is that at the level of profound truths, the opposite to a profound truth is another profound truth (credit to the amazing Mr Niels Bohr for that!) I have no problem harmonizing the "conflicting" concepts of free-will and determinism. I agree that with the bible beliefs you mention, that we have the choice to choose from the ideal option and the less ideal option at all times, and the consequences of our actions help us learn and evolve. I believe we are this one collective Soul ( ), individualized into varying perspectives. We are truly never free from being part of a much bigger picture with purposes beyond our individuality. And yet our individuality is a crucial part of this process.

All that anger stuff was about humans projecting their own unconscious flaws on this God. During my spiritual experiences, my "revelations" were perfect, Divine, and amazing, but the minute I consider them, or talk about them, etc, I distort them. Sort of like when we look at the quantum world and affect it by our effort to understand it. When I talk about this stuff, I cannot do it justice. My words are so far removed from the truth that it's frustrating.

I just want to elaborate with you on this dualistic concept in the Bible. If taken to mean that free-will is the ability to make decisions to influence one's own fate. And God's plan is taken as those things which we cannot control. There are two ways of interpreting this. One is that simply our ability as human beings to make decisions is a key part of our survival, our health, happiness and so on. Every moment of our lives we make decisions. Each one affecting us in chaotic ways. Every decision we make has far greater consequences than we are aware of. God's plan or the determinism, ultimately says that those decisions are much more than the work of consciousness alone. One could feel forgiveness and love for their fellows knowing humans are imperfect. Alternatively, where I think the message gets distorted; is believing that God's plan is not a big part of decision making. Placing all the burden on the individual shoulders. I think the idea of the Bible is that emphasis on determinism, but also the emphasis on decision making, the two key important things that I'm also concerned with. The problem I have with the Bible, or any religion teaching the same thing, is that it's obscured by fancy stories and idols. The basic message gets lost in all the stuff built up around it. I take a more blunt approach to the whole thing.

It's just the way everyone behaves. I think much of Freud's theories and a lot of psychology, is based around the way people think in western culture. But neuroscience has shown that things are much more fundamental than that. It's like assembly language, machine code, and programming languages, different levels that computer software and hardware operate. At the very fundamental level of human software, we could develop any kind of system. The brain is so plastic that people can manipulate it with their own thoughts. When people go to regression therapy, it's a known fact that memories are often implanted through the procedure. That is the potency of suggestion alone on the plasticity of the brain. At that level, it's pretty obvious how everything works. Not many, if any neuroscientists are dualists or indeterminists. Total determinism predates christianity, it's the oldest thing in the book. It's essentially proven by modern science. Christianity acknowledges it as well, as the ultimate decider. I think this whole free-will thing is blown way out of proportion. That's my problem with the history of this culture. Hard determinism sets straight the way people think about reality. Dualism leaves the door wide open for people to pick and choose what events and decisions were an act of free-will and what was not.

An excerpt from http://www.brainsource.com/criminal_brain.htm
Research is converging from many fronts significantly linking serious crime with brain abnormalities. Cultural understanding and treatment of criminal behavior must keep pace with neuroscientific advances. Mitigating circumstances to criminal behavior does not excuse the behavior; understanding those factors provides the foundation for humane understanding and treatment that goes well beyond locking someone up and throwing away the key, or worse.

In a way, I don't even care if there is a such thing as free-will, or God or any of that bolagna. I just want society to change it's ludicrous ways. Between pride, envy, consumerism, nationalism, capitalism, usury, sexism, racism, even the school yard bullying. It's all built on this dualist/indeterminist concept, based on determinism, all that stuff is aweful. How can a person have an ego, if they never learned the concept of free-will, if they were consistently taught hard determinism?

Ahnimus

lucylespian wrote:

I dunno, that's pretty ineffable, totally ineffable actually, but it's existence causes me to wonder, nto to confine the answer to the paltry tale of Creation !!

Creation is a paradox. I've never understood the assumption of creation. The idea is that things exist, so they must have been created, but to presuppose a creator would be paradoxical, because it would be infinity thereafter. It's the old turtle problem.

The most widely known version today appears in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which begins with an anecdote about an encounter between a scientist and an old lady:

A well-known scientist (some say it was the philosopher Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"

"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

It is possible that the lady's comment came after Russell's 1927 lecture Why I Am Not a Christian where, in discounting the "First Cause" argument intended to be a proof of God's existence, he comments:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I just want to elaborate with you on this dualistic concept in the Bible. If taken to mean that free-will is the ability to make decisions to influence one's own fate. And God's plan is taken as those things which we cannot control. There are two ways of interpreting this. One is that simply our ability as human beings to make decisions is a key part of our survival, our health, happiness and so on. Every moment of our lives we make decisions. Each one affecting us in chaotic ways. Every decision we make has far greater consequences than we are aware of. God's plan or the determinism, ultimately says that those decisions are much more than the work of consciousness alone. One could feel forgiveness and love for their fellows knowing humans are imperfect.

EXACTLY. This is why the Truths in the bible are no different than what you propose regarding determinism. It's about rising above the programming with an understanding of ourselves and others beyond our egos, or who we think we are which is about the lower level flaws we've learned. This is also completely consistent with the basic psychological concept of becoming one with who we really are--the Self--which is FAR more than this tiny, false contrived egoistic self most people relate to.

The things people hate about religion--the things an athiest sees as flawed within religion, including with the highest religious leaders, is their human animal base flaws, errors and contradictions. And again, this is part of the human experience. This is what the Truths in religion at it's essence are about: we are deeply flawed or "sinful". Until we can accept that our basic nature as humans is this, we'll continue to make all these "sinful" errors. The true basis--the true spirituality beneath the false human errors put on religion, is exactly what you or I perceive--the truth about the way out.

The one thing I would say differently than what you said is when you said "God's plan or the determinism, ultimately says that those decisions are much more than the work of consciousness alone." I agree in the sense that those decisions are much more than the work of the individual consciousness, or the ego, alone. (in psychology, for example, they perceive our individual consciousness to extend into the collective consciousness. This is considered natural, not supernatural)

There ARE churches, religious leaders, etc,--and I see them all around--whose basic point is to open people to exactly what you are I are trying to open them to, through this concept. They were started for this purpose--to awaken people to what is real. The thing is that people who are programmed to believe in authority look to church for an authority that they will trust to tell them about this. And churches know what they need to do in order to give people what they need to progress.

Consider onelongsong for a minute, here. He and I have had a deep understanding that we've shared for this past year. Both of us have had unusual situations with our brains that have allowed us to step outside the usual human view/perspective. Due to our situations, we both have this fundamental understanding, of seeing how people are oblivious to the truth of life beneath the human smokescreens or illusions. We both recognize the fundamentals beyond what human personalities and interpretations have put upon such Truths. The Truths themselves are so big and pervasive and so beyond what we know. Interestingly, you also seem to know this, although you speak it in a different language. And also, you have had "brain issues". Maybe you can understand what I see as the paradox of the deeper and complemetary truths...they fit perfectly without opposing each other. Like with the contradictions in classical physics and quantum physics. The "brain damage" onelongsong, yourself or I have had, appears to be the actual mechanism that has allowed us to see outside of the basic hypnosis. While it's an illness or problem in one way of looking at it, on another more fundamental level, it's the Truthful way of seeing. This is why on spiritual levels, the human brain is seen as what keeps us focussing on our scripts, and programming. What is seen as amazing, and the saving grace to the average person--our brains, on another level is what keeps us separate from the truth.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Alternatively, where I think the message gets distorted; is believing that God's plan is not a big part of decision making. Placing all the burden on the individual shoulders. I think the idea of the Bible is that emphasis on determinism, but also the emphasis on decision making, the two key important things that I'm also concerned with. The problem I have with the Bible, or any religion teaching the same thing, is that it's obscured by fancy stories and idols. The basic message gets lost in all the stuff built up around it. I take a more blunt approach to the whole thing.

Keep in mind that the bible and religion is not intended to teach you and your minority style of learning. Religions are there to teach the entrenched masses, who are looking to authority figures. There is a distinct group of people who are just at this stage in their evolution. In terms of personal evolutionary developmental stages, every human in their development goes through this period of rigidly believing authority. So this method is right for individuals at that stage. People such as myself, or philosopher Ken Wilber are bent on preserving the healthy aspects of these stages, to support and enable the people at such stages to be able to go through it in as healthy was as possible. We recognize that they WILL go through the stage, and that it's necessary in order to get to the other side. Some will stay in this stage, because their energy is too bogged down for them to progress out, but they still make individual progress within this stage throughout their lives. This stage of individual human development WILL include polarized ideas of "right/wrong". Also keep in mind that many people might perceive an Einstein God, and still go to church and weed through the authoritarian "sin"/blame aspects. I see that a LOT.

I agree with you that at that level of awareness, and from our perspective, the Truth does get distorted. If you keep in mind that humans at many stages (and I still work with this) see a split, dualistic view. They are not able to understand that the power and the ability is IN them--the Truths. Remember that Jesus' method was to teach that God was within. And that God is our Father--the parent to our very being. This is an awesome metaphor to depict this concept to someone who can't otherwise understand it.

It's just the way everyone behaves. I think much of Freud's theories and a lot of psychology, is based around the way people think in western culture. But neuroscience has shown that things are much more fundamental than that.

Yes. This is why there are people such as myself who recognize that basic science truths are the same thing as basic religious truths--seeing beyond the programs. The science/religion split is another false dichotomy like right/wrong. The problem in both science and religion is about human flaw and dogma that is about human psychology, and not truth.

If you are saying that science shows us that how we think is much more fundamental than our surface psychology, I completely agree.

It's like assembly language, machine code, and programming languages, different levels that computer software and hardware operate. At the very fundamental level of human software, we could develop any kind of system. The brain is so plastic that people can manipulate it with their own thoughts. When people go to regression therapy, it's a known fact that memories are often implanted through the procedure. That is the potency of suggestion alone on the plasticity of the brain. At that level, it's pretty obvious how everything works. Not many, if any neuroscientists are dualists or indeterminists. Total determinism predates christianity, it's the oldest thing in the book. It's essentially proven by modern science. Christianity acknowledges it as well, as the ultimate decider. I think this whole free-will thing is blown way out of proportion. That's my problem with the history of this culture. Hard determinism sets straight the way people think about reality. Dualism leaves the door wide open for people to pick and choose what events and decisions were an act of free-will and what was not.

The thing I see, though, is that determinists still have false dichotomies in areas beyond the pure science Truths. Just like religious people do beyond the pure religious Truths. Because when the human psyche is split, which is normally the case, we will see the falseness. I think you believe, like I do, that this can be rectified.

An excerpt from http://www.brainsource.com/criminal_brain.htm
Research is converging from many fronts significantly linking serious crime with brain abnormalities. Cultural understanding and treatment of criminal behavior must keep pace with neuroscientific advances. Mitigating circumstances to criminal behavior does not excuse the behavior; understanding those factors provides the foundation for humane understanding and treatment that goes well beyond locking someone up and throwing away the key, or worse.

I completely agree, as you know.

Here is where I agree with what soulsinging was saying in one of these debates: due to our dichtomous and false perceptions, the majority of people will still drastically distort these truths when they are filtered into the masses. Just like most people distort religious or science ones all the time--because of fundamental problems in the human condition. On all levels from that of scientist, to psychologist, on down to parole folk, or jailers. So for everyone you or I teach of our "great revelations", for as many people as we help, a negative backlash will also move into action. However, since I plan to unleash myself on the world with this as a self-help person, I've pondered this problem for years. We will be teachers of the truth. That can never, ever be diminished. The dichotomous ways these truths will become distorted is natural and is evolutionarily sound. People will move in a two steps forward, one step back way. That's how it works. There are benefits, and there will be fallout. But it is still within the processes of evolution and hence purposeful and progressive.

In a way, I don't even care if there is a such thing as free-will, or God or any of that bolagna. I just want society to change it's ludicrous ways. Between pride, envy, consumerism, nationalism, capitalism, usury, sexism, racism, even the school yard bullying. It's all built on this dualist/indeterminist concept, based on determinism, all that stuff is aweful. How can a person have an ego, if they never learned the concept of free-will, if they were consistently taught hard determinism?

Ultimately, I think it's cool that we can influence it all, and play an evolutionarily front-running role. That has amazing rewards! Especially when I learn more and more what I can change, and what I must align with. It's all set into play, it all Is what it Is and will be.

MakingWaves

Just another poll I saw that I thought was interesting on scientists who believe in God from Live Science Magazine.

"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife."