God and Science

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: God and Science

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:14 am

James S Saint wrote:
Exactly how do you define Scientific Framework such as to cover your bases

Testable Hypotheses / Experimentation / Repeatability

Inter Subjectivity / Potential Falsification / Peer Review
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: God and Science

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:25 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
A rational Scientist will accept the following

1 Known: Empirically proven within the Scientific Framework
2 Not yet known: Empirically POSSIBLE to be proven within the Scientific Framework

One should be careful with language here. Science is primarily an inductive discipline so does not do proof as such
[ only disproof ] Proof is the remit of axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as mathematics and syllogisms
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:52 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
A rational Scientist will accept the following

1 Known: Empirically proven within the Scientific Framework
2 Not yet known: Empirically POSSIBLE to be proven within the Scientific Framework

One should be careful with language here. Science is primarily an inductive discipline so does not do proof as such
[ only disproof ] Proof is the remit of axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as mathematics and syllogisms

I have came across your point and claim that 'proof' is exclusively for mathematics or syllogisms but I have never taken that seriously.

I don't think it is necessary to be that pedantic about it.
In any case I qualified my 'proof' to within the Scientific Framework to provide context and to avoid confusion.

I notice 'proof' is not exclusively for only mathematics & syllogism.
There are contexts below where 'proof' is related to evidence, i.e. Science, Law, theology, philosophy [non-logic situations] and in general.

One of the most common use of 'prove' and 'proof' is with reference to the existence of God and this is 'evidence' [absence of] related.

Here is a list of related context where 'proof' is acceptable.
(note not all are relevant to our point but many [bolded] are]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof
Proof may refer to:
Proof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition
Formal proof
Mathematical proof, a convincing demonstration that some mathematical statement is necessarily true
Proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects

Alcohol proof, a measure of an alcoholic drink's strength
Artist's proof, a single print taken during the printmaking process
Galley proof, a preliminary version of a publication
Prepress proof, a facsimile of press artwork for job verification
Proof coinage, coins once made as a test, but now specially struck for collectors
Proofreading, reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors or improvements
Proofing (baking technique), the process by which a yeast-leavened dough rises, also called "proving"

Law[edit]
Evidence, information which tends to determine or demonstrate the truth of a proposition
Evidence (law), tested evidence or a legal proof
Legal burden of proof

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof?s=t
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.anything serving as such evidence:
What proof do you have?
3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
to put a thing to the proof.
4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.

adjective
18.able to withstand; successful in not being overcome:
proof against temptation.
19.impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable:
proof against outside temperature changes.
20.used for testing or proving; serving as proof.
21.of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor.
22.of tested or proven strength or quality:
proof armor.
23.noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.

verb (used with object)
24.to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.
25.Printing. prove (def 7).
26.to proofread.
27.to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination):
to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt.
28.Cookery.
to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs.
to cause (especially bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker's yeast or other leavening.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:25 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
I have came across your point and claim that proof is exclusively for mathematics or syllogisms but I have never taken that seriously

I have never claimed that proof is exclusively for mathematics or syllogisms. They are just two examples
I give. But the distinction between proof and evidence is an important one and should be taken seriously


I don t think it is necessary to be that pedantic about it

I think it is very necessary to be that pedantic about it

In any case I qualified my proof to within the Scientific Framework to provide context and to avoid confusion

And this is why it is necessary to be so pedantic about it : because science
deals in evidence not proof [ excepting negative proof or null hypothesis ]


I notice proof is not exclusively for only mathematics and syllogism

As I have already said I never claimed otherwise

There are contexts below where proof is related to evidence i e Science

Once again : in science proof and evidence do not mean the same thing

One of the most common use of prove and proof is with reference to the existence of God and this is evidence [ absence of ] related

For the third time : evidence and proof are not the same. It is entirely possible for example that God could exist despite
there being zero evidence to support that hypothesis. It is not possible however that he could exist if that was disproved

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:36 pm

How can you say that there is no absolute truth and also say that there are absolute moral principles and an absolute good? That's an obvious contradiction.
Prismatic wrote:
Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
So what I am absolutely certain is ultimately relative, but notably grounded on a 'sound philosophical framework'.


Prismatic wrote:
Basically Morality from my perspective is to do with absolute moral principles that are supposed to be absolutely good for the well being of humanity. If it is not good, then it is evil.
Surely humanity in general would not expect any Scientific elements to tilt towards evil which could at the extreme exterminate the human species.

Note my view is 'Morality' is Pure Absolute Moral Principles while 'Ethics' belong the Applied aspects of applying Pure Absolute Principles.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:55 am

phyllo wrote:How can you say that there is no absolute truth and also say that there are absolute moral principles and an absolute good? That's an obvious contradiction.
Prismatic wrote:
Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
So what I am absolutely certain is ultimately relative, but notably grounded on a 'sound philosophical framework'.


Prismatic wrote:
Basically Morality from my perspective is to do with absolute moral principles that are supposed to be absolutely good for the well being of humanity. If it is not good, then it is evil.
Surely humanity in general would not expect any Scientific elements to tilt towards evil which could at the extreme exterminate the human species.

Note my view is 'Morality' is Pure Absolute Moral Principles while 'Ethics' belong the Applied aspects of applying Pure Absolute Principles.
In practice there are 'absolutes in the conventional sense'

    Absolute may refer to:
    Science[edit]
    Absolute magnitude, the brightness of a star
    Absolute zero, the lower limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, -273.15 °C
    Mathematics[edit]
    Absoluteness in mathematical logic
    Absolute value, a notion in mathematics, commonly a number's numerical value without regard to its sign
    Absolute (geometry), the quadric at infinity

    Law[edit]
    Absolute defence, a factual circumstance or argument that, if proven, will end the litigation in favor of the defendant
    Absolute liability, a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions

    Politics[edit]
    Absolute majority, a majority of the entire membership of a group
    Absolute monarchy, a monarchical form of government in which the monarch's powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law
    Linguistics[edit]
    Absolute construction, a grammatical construction used in certain languages

    Philosophy[edit]
    Absolute (philosophy), a concept in philosophy
    Absolute truth (Buddhism) (Sanskrit, paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), describes the ultimate reality as "sunyata", empty of concrete and inherent characteristics


When I say,
    Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
Note the "Truth" is with a capital 'T' i.e. the ontological Truth and some claim to be God. This is the Truth of the Absolutely Absolute.

When I refer to "absolute moral principles" I was referring to relative absolutes within the Moral and Ethical Framework. Such absolutes are conditional upon whatever their framework and system of knowledge, thus they are relative absolutes.
From my perspective, in term of degrees of philosophical complexity, "absolute moral principles" would be rated at 99% while the others are below it.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:34 pm

When I say,

Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.

Note the "Truth" is with a capital 'T' i.e. the ontological Truth and some claim to be God. This is the Truth of the Absolutely Absolute.
If you take mathematics as an example. It has absolute truths. And since gods do not need to be introduced, it has Absolute Truths as well.
Physics provides absolute truths in the form of descriptions of physical interactions. The theories which explain those interactions may not be true, but the descriptions are truth. (Again no gods.)
When I refer to "absolute moral principles" I was referring to relative absolutes within the Moral and Ethical Framework. Such absolutes are conditional upon whatever their framework and system of knowledge, thus they are relative absolutes.
From my perspective, in term of degrees of philosophical complexity, "absolute moral principles" would be rated at 99% while the others are below it.
If you concepts of good and evil and moral principles can evaporate simply by adopting another philosophical framework, then I don't see why you are so gung-ho to push your own particular concepts on to everyone. Those are just your own preferences and they are no better than the preferences of someone with another framework.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:56 am

phyllo wrote:
When I say,

Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.

Note the "Truth" is with a capital 'T' i.e. the ontological Truth and some claim to be God. This is the Truth of the Absolutely Absolute.
If you take mathematics as an example. It has absolute truths. And since gods do not need to be introduced, it has Absolute Truths as well.
Physics provides absolute truths in the form of descriptions of physical interactions. The theories which explain those interactions may not be true, but the descriptions are truth. (Again no gods.)
I had agreed, Mathematics, Physics and others do have absolute truths, but these absolute truths are conditioned by their respective Framework and Systems which are maintained [shared with consensus] within the specific groups of human minds.

As with the above, religions can claim for absolute truths which are conditioned within their Framework and Systems. So as long as believers are willing to accept such conditions and their systems are man-made there is no issue. For example, most of the Eastern religions are willing to accept their Framework and System are human-made.

However there is an issue with the Abrahamic religions and some theistic Framework and Systems which claimed their Framework and Systems are not conditioned by humans at all but are independently created by a God which is totally unconditional. Thus the truths from such an Absolute system is the Absolute Truth without any condition at all. Such claims are not philosophically sound, thus are illusory and false, albeit they do work to a very limited degree based on threats, i.e. 'Do do this ought, else Hell!'

Note the difference?


When I refer to "absolute moral principles" I was referring to relative absolutes within the Moral and Ethical Framework. Such absolutes are conditional upon whatever their framework and system of knowledge, thus they are relative absolutes.
From my perspective, in term of degrees of philosophical complexity, "absolute moral principles" would be rated at 99% while the others are below it.
If you concepts of good and evil and moral principles can evaporate simply by adopting another philosophical framework, then I don't see why you are so gung-ho to push your own particular concepts on to everyone. Those are just your own preferences and they are no better than the preferences of someone with another framework.
So far I have not presented the full proposals of the philosophical Moral & Ethical Framework and System yet. The only clue I gave is it is along the same theories proposed by Kant and similar to the principles from some Eastern religions, especially Buddhism, Taoism [complementarity for e.g.].

The point is no one should accept any proposals until the arguments are soundly proven to be logical, sound, rational and possible to be implemented, tested and verified.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:39 pm

However there is an issue with the Abrahamic religions and some theistic Framework and Systems which claimed their Framework and Systems are not conditioned by humans at all but are independently created by a God which is totally unconditional. Thus the truths from such an Absolute system is the Absolute Truth without any condition at all. Such claims are not philosophically sound, thus are illusory and false, albeit they do work to a very limited degree based on threats, i.e. 'Do do this ought, else Hell!'
Those religious are also 'conditioned' because not all texts and revelations are accepted. There is a process of selection and interpretation. And there is an acknowledgement of the possibility of error.

Not all Abrahamic religions have a belief in hell. The concept of hell has changed significantly over time. The "threat" has evolved.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Pandora » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:20 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
1. Known: Empirically proven within the Scientific Framework
2. Not yet known: Empirically POSSIBLE to be proven within the Scientific Framework.

Thus with 2, I can speculate human-like aliens existing in a planet 1 billion light years away, because the element in color here are all empirically possible.

The above must be reinforced with very sound philosophical justifications to sustain their credibility to the truths of reality.

Lennox and theists however take the leap beyond empirically proven and empirically possible to the illusory of the Transcendental which is empirically impossible, like a square-circle. The idea of a transcendental God is an empirical impossibility and thus there is no way God can exists as real.

Whilst the idea transcendental God is an empirical impossibility, the idea of God itself is a possibility to be thought of in the mind. So what theists have at best is merely the idea of of an impossible God.
Why theists are clinging to the "idea of God" as a belief is because it has psychological and survival value that work, otherwise they would be a psychological wreck with existential angst. But the critical point is the idea of God itself [God's nature] is transcendental, i.e. illusory and an impossibility, analogically like seeking a square-circle.

I was thinking the same. It doesn't make sense to even talk about such as transcendental being - a being that transcends reality itself. It would be like talking about nothingness. Transcend into what? The closest that we can get to that is an expression of fear of the unknown (and perhaps faith is just that). After an encounter with such an unknown, you can't really say anything, nor should be, really, unless you can somehow prove it to be true in empirical sense; and this is where science comes in (but science does not work with transcendental, only with reality).
Another variation of such transcendental being, from the Buddhists, is reality as a God's dream. However, even if that were a true case, how can one prove it to be true, other than alluding to as-below-so-above argument, from which one can make many such assumptions. So it does boil down to simply a thought experiment; and when people overstep this and start taking it seriously, as truth, they either are just being naïve, or self-serving.
So, if God is transcendental, then science is not compatible with it. If God is not transcendental, but is seen as some sort of revelation of complex reality that is mystified/spiritualized (as Jung may have believed) then science may be compatible; although the interpretation of facts may be affected by assigning extra meanings.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:30 am

phyllo wrote:
However there is an issue with the Abrahamic religions and some theistic Framework and Systems which claimed their Framework and Systems are not conditioned by humans at all but are independently created by a God which is totally unconditional. Thus the truths from such an Absolute system is the Absolute Truth without any condition at all. Such claims are not philosophically sound, thus are illusory and false, albeit they do work to a very limited degree based on threats, i.e. 'Do do this ought, else Hell!'
Those religious are also 'conditioned' because not all texts and revelations are accepted. There is a process of selection and interpretation. And there is an acknowledgement of the possibility of error.

Not all Abrahamic religions have a belief in hell. The concept of hell has changed significantly over time. The "threat" has evolved.
There is no possibility of error in the Quran as Allah had claimed.

    Quran 5:3 [part] .. This day have I [Allah] Perfected [akmaltu] your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan], ..

I understand Christianity has a provision for error by humans. Not too sure with Judaism?

Whatever the "hell" concept the fundamental intent is to invoke and trigger primal existential fears.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:39 am

Pandora wrote:I was thinking the same. It doesn't make sense to even talk about such as transcendental being - a being that transcends reality itself. It would be like talking about nothingness. Transcend into what? The closest that we can get to that is an expression of fear of the unknown (and perhaps faith is just that). After an encounter with such an unknown, you can't really say anything, nor should be, really, unless you can somehow prove it to be true in empirical sense; and this is where science comes in (but science does not work with transcendental, only with reality).
Yes, note Meno's Paradox, i.e. how can one really knows any thing when one do not know it in the first place.

Another variation of such transcendental being, from the Buddhists, is reality as a God's dream. However, even if that were a true case, how can one prove it to be true, other than alluding to as-below-so-above argument, from which one can make many such assumptions. So it does boil down to simply a thought experiment; and when people overstep this and start taking it seriously, as truth, they either are just being naïve, or self-serving.
I am very familiar with Buddhism. Within Buddhism proper there is no such thing as an absolutely independent transcendental being.
Some Buddhist schools may have beliefs in some sort of beings but they are ultimately conditioned. There is no independent transcendental being within Buddhism-proper.

So, if God is transcendental, then science is not compatible with it. If God is not transcendental, but is seen as some sort of revelation of complex reality that is mystified/spiritualized (as Jung may have believed) then science may be compatible; although the interpretation of facts may be affected by assigning extra meanings.
If "God" is not taken as an independent absolute transcendental being, then it is compatible with or explainable by Science and other fields of non-transcendental knowledge subject to sound arguments and justifications.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:51 pm

There is no possibility of error in the Quran as Allah had claimed.

Quran 5:3 [part] .. This day have I [Allah] Perfected [akmaltu] your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan], ..
Allah is perfect and his religion is perfect but fallible men read the texts and act in imperfect ways.
Whatever the "hell" concept the fundamental intent is to invoke and trigger primal existential fears.
It can also be looked at as an absolutely fair justice system - nobody can hide his wrongdoing or to avoid the consequence of a wrong act.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Pandora » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:24 pm

Scientist vs Mystic | A Conversation about Cosmos, Brain and Reality | David Eagleman and Sadguru:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCTs8oeAh8

Most of what the mystic said was based on yogi metaphysical classification of human mind and rather outdated view of the components of reality through primary classical elements. Some of the things they talked about (mostly yogi mystic):

Dimensions of the mind:

Intellect - quality of the brain - conscious reasoning - slave to arbitrary (social) identity which it protects
Identity - Ahamkara - ego identity - intellect serves identity.
Body memory (genetic/subconscious) - Manas - has more memory than the brain - memory of ancestors all the way back to beginning of life - and beyond! (3:16-4:38)
Pure Intelligence - Chitta - deeper intelligence present in nature - is not dependent on memory - appears to be like that of automatic animal nature (4:38- 6:00)

The question raised by yogi is whether there is a type of knowledge which does not fit into logical framework, that is through intellect, and the consequences of pursuing knowledge only through intellect (science)

On time perception (8:03-12:23)
Acts as psychological filter - Physicality is cyclical/movement - planets, etc. - disassociation with one's physical nature (time) will negate the consequence of time!

[This naturally begs the question of self identity. The yogi admitted that the brain could be fooled, but the body could not (10:00-10:20), but how does he get his self identity to be independent of them, even as acknowledging them? The answer to that, as I understood it, was the evolution of self-awareness (the breaking off) to be seen as a purely exploratory independent phenomenon (as he believed that the instinctive animal nature would have taken care of itself without awareness), exploring different dimensions of reality, not for its usefulness or survival (as in current science), but for exploration sake only. (12:23-17:00). This led to his critique of science being driven not for the sake of exploration, the need to know, (as he claims is so in mysticism), but primarily for its usefulness/utility (17:05- 18:15).]

Purpose/Point of Life vs Purpose of Science (27:48- 32:13)
Yogi - Life is not about how to use knowledge/its usefulness - this approach will not make life better, because no matter how well you survive it will never be enough to fulfill a human being - the possible alternative presented is perhaps knowing itself is purpose of life because it satisfies the fundamental need to know. He also points to the issue of morality: if science only looks for what it can use (utility), why wouldn't it also not study humans for their potential uses?

What is life (40:46-46:55)
Everything is life, differentiated by varying degrees of accumulation of information - it's possible to dissasociate yourself from your genetic memory - it is possible to know a part of self that is beyond your physical nature (47:45-48-55).
[I don't know what to say on that issue. This is something you either believe in or not. I can only comment by saying that the yogi himself pointed out that science is trying to touch the non-physical with a physical stick, pointing to its limitations, but, somehow, humans themseves are an exception, being able to access the non-physical]
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: God and Science

Postby Pandora » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:45 pm

This is not new, but would be worthwhile to consider and maybe even explore further.

Changes in right parietal lobe (and frontal lobe) and their effect on sense of spirituality.

Distinct 'God spot' in the brain does not exist, MU researcher says.


COLUMBIA, Mo. - Scientists have speculated that the human brain features a "God spot," one distinct area of the brain responsible for spirituality. Now, University of Missouri researchers have completed research that indicates spirituality is a complex phenomenon, and multiple areas of the brain are responsible for the many aspects of spiritual experiences. Based on a previously published study that indicated spiritual transcendence is associated with decreased right parietal lobe functioning, MU researchers replicated their findings. In addition, the researchers determined that other aspects of spiritual functioning are related to increased activity in the frontal lobe.

"We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it's not isolated to one specific area of the brain," said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. "Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals' spiritual experiences."

In the most recent study, Johnstone studied 20 people with traumatic brain injuries affecting the right parietal lobe, the area of the brain situated a few inches above the right ear. He surveyed participants on characteristics of spirituality, such as how close they felt to a higher power and if they felt their lives were part of a divine plan. He found that the participants with more significant injury to their right parietal lobe showed an increased feeling of closeness to a higher power.

"Neuropsychology researchers consistently have shown that impairment on the right side of the brain decreases one's focus on the self," Johnstone said. "Since our research shows that people with this impairment are more spiritual, this suggests spiritual experiences are associated with a decreased focus on the self. This is consistent with many religious texts that suggest people should concentrate on the well-being of others rather than on themselves."

Johnstone says the right side of the brain is associated with self-orientation, whereas the left side is associated with how individuals relate to others. Although Johnstone studied people with brain injury, previous studies of Buddhist meditators and Franciscan nuns with normal brain function have shown that people can learn to minimize the functioning of the right side of their brains to increase their spiritual connections during meditation and prayer.

In addition, Johnstone measured the frequency of participants' religious practices, such as how often they attended church or listened to religious programs. He measured activity in the frontal lobe and found a correlation between increased activity in this part of the brain and increased participation in religious practices.

"This finding indicates that spiritual experiences are likely associated with different parts of the brain," Johnstone said.


The study, "Right parietal lobe 'selflessness' as the neuropsychological basis of spiritual transcendence," was published in the International Journal of the Psychology of Religion.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 041812.php

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 012.657524
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:15 am

phyllo wrote:
There is no possibility of error in the Quran as Allah had claimed.

Quran 5:3 [part] .. This day have I [Allah] Perfected [akmaltu] your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan], ..
Allah is perfect and his religion is perfect but fallible men read the texts and act in imperfect ways.
'Perfected' and 'Completed' in Quran 5:3 above are merely ideals and theoretical.

1. The reality is, it is impossible for a God to exists as real.
2. Therefore there was no 'Perfected' and 'Completed' Quran from any God.
3. Thus from 2, the Quran [claimed to be from God] was authored by human[s].

4. Because the Quran was from fallible human[s] it contain X-good [some] and Y-evil [lots] elements.
5. Muslims must adopt the Quran and thus are compelled to comply with X and Y elements to please God.
6. When they commit Y element to please God, the consequences are terrible evils and violence wrecked upon non-Muslims and even some Muslims deemed as apostate.

Whatever the "hell" concept the fundamental intent is to invoke and trigger primal existential fears.
It can also be looked at as an absolutely fair justice system - nobody can hide his wrongdoing or to avoid the consequence of a wrong act.
It cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general and even to believers when fears and guilt exist like a shaky ceiling [or guillotine] over their heads all the time.

A system based on threat do work [morally or immorally] but it is limited within circumstance, conditions, time, etc.
Religious based morals are relatively effective if implemented in a society that is full of anarchy, the people are very barbaric and has great sensitivity to fears. But this is an the expense of genuine justice and basic human rights.

A moral system that has justice is one where people has high moral quotient and act spontaneously good and not because they are threatened with a rod or the wrath of God who will send them to HELL.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:27 am

Pandora wrote:This is not new, but would be worthwhile to consider and maybe even explore further.

Changes in right parietal lobe (and frontal lobe) and their effect on sense of spirituality.

Distinct 'God spot' in the brain does not exist, MU researcher says.

<snipped> .......

"This finding indicates that spiritual experiences are likely associated with different parts of the brain," Johnstone said.[/u]

The study, "Right parietal lobe 'selflessness' as the neuropsychological basis of spiritual transcendence," was published in the International Journal of the Psychology of Religion.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 041812.php

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 012.657524
I agree, humanity must explore such a topic via neuroscience, other advancing knowledge, philosophical deliberations, etc.

It is obvious the brain is the most critical source of human spirituality. However to attribute it to specific part [theory abandoned] or certain parts of the brain need to be taken with lots of caution. The human brain has on average 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses [chemical connectors] plus the many other elements from the body that are interdependent with the brain.

The point is at present whatever is presented from the neurosciences, genomic and other advance knowledge we should welcome them, the more the better, but the reservation is we can only accept them with a 'ladle [not pinch] of salt.' [a caution from Antonio Damasio].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:57 am

Pandora wrote:Scientist vs Mystic | A Conversation about Cosmos, Brain and Reality | David Eagleman and Sadguru:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCTs8oeAh8

Most of what the mystic said was based on yogi metaphysical classification of human mind and rather outdated view of the components of reality through primary classical elements. Some of the things they talked about (mostly yogi mystic):

Dimensions of the mind:

Intellect - quality of the brain - conscious reasoning - slave to arbitrary (social) identity which it protects
Identity - Ahamkara - ego identity - intellect serves identity.
Body memory (genetic/subconscious) - Manas - has more memory than the brain - memory of ancestors all the way back to beginning of life - and beyond! (3:16-4:38)
Pure Intelligence - Chitta - deeper intelligence present in nature - is not dependent on memory - appears to be like that of automatic animal nature (4:38- 6:00)

The question raised by yogi is whether there is a type of knowledge which does not fit into logical framework, that is through intellect, and the consequences of pursuing knowledge only through intellect (science)

On time perception (8:03-12:23)
Acts as psychological filter - Physicality is cyclical/movement - planets, etc. - disassociation with one's physical nature (time) will negate the consequence of time!

[This naturally begs the question of self identity. The yogi admitted that the brain could be fooled, but the body could not (10:00-10:20), but how does he get his self identity to be independent of them, even as acknowledging them? The answer to that, as I understood it, was the evolution of self-awareness (the breaking off) to be seen as a purely exploratory independent phenomenon (as he believed that the instinctive animal nature would have taken care of itself without awareness), exploring different dimensions of reality, not for its usefulness or survival (as in current science), but for exploration sake only. (12:23-17:00). This led to his critique of science being driven not for the sake of exploration, the need to know, (as he claims is so in mysticism), but primarily for its usefulness/utility (17:05- 18:15).]

Purpose/Point of Life vs Purpose of Science (27:48- 32:13)
Yogi - Life is not about how to use knowledge/its usefulness - this approach will not make life better, because no matter how well you survive it will never be enough to fulfill a human being - the possible alternative presented is perhaps knowing itself is purpose of life because it satisfies the fundamental need to know. He also points to the issue of morality: if science only looks for what it can use (utility), why wouldn't it also not study humans for their potential uses?

What is life (40:46-46:55)
Everything is life, differentiated by varying degrees of accumulation of information - it's possible to dissasociate yourself from your genetic memory - it is possible to know a part of self that is beyond your physical nature (47:45-48-55).
[I don't know what to say on that issue. This is something you either believe in or not. I can only comment by saying that the yogi himself pointed out that science is trying to touch the non-physical with a physical stick, pointing to its limitations, but, somehow, humans themseves are an exception, being able to access the non-physical]

I did not go through the 50 minutes in the video. Normally most gurus will explain their Hindu philosophical traditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy and school of thought.
This Guru seem merely to focus on Yoga and little on Hindu philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev

Most of the popular Yoga teachers from India do not focus much on Hindu Philosophy but more on the exercises. e.g.
Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga - Sri K. Pattabhi Jois
Bihar School of Yoga - Swami Satyananda Saraswati[1]
Sivananda Yoga - Swami Vishnu-devananda
Iyengar Yoga - B.K.S. Iyengar

On the aspect of Spiritual Philosophy and Neuroscience I would prefer to read those of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism.

What is life (40:46-46:55)
Everything is life, differentiated by varying degrees of accumulation of information - it's possible to dissasociate yourself from your genetic memory - it is possible to know a part of self that is beyond your physical nature (47:45-48-55).
Here he is moving beyond to the Transcendental and thus out of the scope of empirical and philosophical reality. This is likely related to the concept of Brahman as the Transcendental Absolute Reality beyond the self and physical reality which can be theistic or pantheistic. At this ultimate point such concept [albeit more refined] is no different from Transcendental Absolute God [a crude concept] of the Abrahamic religions and other theistic religions.

Note there are those [some] who view Brahman from the non-theistic perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya
    The existence of God or supreme being is not directly asserted, nor considered relevant by the Samkhya philosophers. Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God). [wiki]
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:50 pm

It cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general and even to believers when fears and guilt exist like a shaky ceiling [or guillotine] over their heads all the time.
Fairness and fear/guilt are compatible. It's fair that a person feels guilt for a wrongful act. It's fair that he fears the consequence of a wrongful act.
A moral system that has justice is one where people has high moral quotient and act spontaneously good and not because they are threatened with a rod or the wrath of God who will send them to HELL.
??
A pretty strange statement coming from someone who constantly talks about evil and the potential for evil.

If everyone was "spontaneously good" then there would no need of a justice system or a moral code of conduct.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:04 pm

'Perfected' and 'Completed' in Quran 5:3 above are merely ideals and theoretical.

1. The reality is, it is impossible for a God to exists as real.
2. Therefore there was no 'Perfected' and 'Completed' Quran from any God.
3. Thus from 2, the Quran [claimed to be from God] was authored by human[s].

4. Because the Quran was from fallible human[s] it contain X-good [some] and Y-evil [lots] elements.
5. Muslims must adopt the Quran and thus are compelled to comply with X and Y elements to please God.
6. When they commit Y element to please God, the consequences are terrible evils and violence wrecked upon non-Muslims and even some Muslims deemed as apostate.
This is just preaching from your atheist philosophical framework.

Your argument carries no weight because theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews) don't accept your framework. They do not accept your first statement and therefore the rest of the statements are irrelevant or false.

But if you want to keep repeating this for the benefit of other atheists ...
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:14 am

phyllo wrote:
It cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general and even to believers when fears and guilt exist like a shaky ceiling [or guillotine] over their heads all the time.
Fairness and fear/guilt are compatible. It's fair that a person feels guilt for a wrongful act. It's fair that he fears the consequence of a wrongful act.
It is not fair and with justice if guilt is triggered based on evil intentions, ignorance or delusions.

For example;
1. The Bible stated fornication before marriage is sinful.
2. Johnny was driven by impulse and had sex before marriage.
3. The above act in 2 triggered fear and guilt.
4. Upon 3 Johnny committed suicide when overcame by guilt.

There are many such cases as above where innocent commit suicide or suffer terribly due to fears and guilt and all these are grounded on an illusion, i.e. God exists.

Thus the moral system that cause the above cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general.

A moral system that has justice is one where people has high moral quotient and act spontaneously good and not because they are threatened with a rod or the wrath of God who will send them to HELL.
??
A pretty strange statement coming from someone who constantly talks about evil and the potential for evil.

If everyone was "spontaneously good" then there would no need of a justice system or a moral code of conduct.
First there is no 100% perfection. So I did not state every one is spontaneously good with the maximum moral quotient possible.

In an effective moral and ethical system, every one will progress continuously from their base to be "spontaneously good." Some bases may be 10%, 20%, 50%, 75% and other degrees.
Therefore we still need an effective moral and ethical system to guide every one to progress from whatever their current based of being "spontaneously good".
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:36 am

phyllo wrote:
'Perfected' and 'Completed' in Quran 5:3 above are merely ideals and theoretical.

1. The reality is, it is impossible for a God to exists as real.
2. Therefore there was no 'Perfected' and 'Completed' Quran from any God.
3. Thus from 2, the Quran [claimed to be from God] was authored by human[s].

4. Because the Quran was from fallible human[s] it contain X-good [some] and Y-evil [lots] elements.
5. Muslims must adopt the Quran and thus are compelled to comply with X and Y elements to please God.
6. When they commit Y element to please God, the consequences are terrible evils and violence wrecked upon non-Muslims and even some Muslims deemed as apostate.
This is just preaching from your atheist philosophical framework.

Your argument carries no weight because theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews) don't accept your framework. They do not accept your first statement and therefore the rest of the statements are irrelevant or false.

But if you want to keep repeating this for the benefit of other atheists ...
Note theists have never accepted my premise 1 since human since conceived it, from thousands of years ago.

But the reality is humans are still discussing it and many theists have accepted premise 1 and became non-theists.
So it does not matter if theist do not accept my P1 [by default they Must not accept it] but regardless we in a philosophical forum must discuss it and give our views.

Why Humanity must discuss the above framework regardless theist agree or not?
One of the consequences of the Framework encompassing 1-7 is this;

Image

With such a link and cause-effects factors between the two, any concerned citizen of humanity must strive to find the root causes and seek solutions.
Are you a concern citizen of humanity?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:58 am

With such a link and cause-effects factors between the two, any concerned citizen of humanity must strive to find the root causes and seek solutions.
The cause is that people pursue their own agendas with total disregard for others. Which is also what you are doing.

The solution is in focusing on what humans have in common but instead the focus is turned towards differences.
Last edited by phyllo on Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:04 am

It is not fair and with justice if guilt is triggered based on evil intentions, ignorance or delusions.

For example;
1. The Bible stated fornication before marriage is sinful.
2. Johnny was driven by impulse and had sex before marriage.
3. The above act in 2 triggered fear and guilt.
4. Upon 3 Johnny committed suicide when overcame by guilt.

There are many such cases as above where innocent commit suicide or suffer terribly due to fears and guilt and all these are grounded on an illusion, i.e. God exists.

Thus the moral system that cause the above cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general.
Well, let's make everything acceptable so that nobody feels guilty or bad or sad. :evilfun:

Let Johnny have sex with a hundred women, girls, men, boys, children, he-shes. Let him father a dozen children who he abandons . Let him be the cause of uncounted abortions. Let him spread STDs.
Just don't let him feel bad about anything that he does. :evilfun:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: God and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:44 am

phyllo wrote:
It is not fair and with justice if guilt is triggered based on evil intentions, ignorance or delusions.

For example;
1. The Bible stated fornication before marriage is sinful.
2. Johnny was driven by impulse and had sex before marriage.
3. The above act in 2 triggered fear and guilt.
4. Upon 3 Johnny committed suicide when overcame by guilt.

There are many such cases as above where innocent commit suicide or suffer terribly due to fears and guilt and all these are grounded on an illusion, i.e. God exists.

Thus the moral system that cause the above cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general.
Well, let's make everything acceptable so that nobody feels guilty or bad or sad. :evilfun:

Let Johnny have sex with a hundred women, girls, men, boys, children, he-shes. Let him father a dozen children who he abandons . Let him be the cause of uncounted abortions. Let him spread STDs.
Just don't let him feel bad about anything that he does. :evilfun:
Humans has an inbuilt algorithm for morality and progress in morality which can be guilt free from a autocratic dictatorial non-existent God. So even without immutable religious moral standards, Johnny will spontaneously progress to be good along with the moral consciousness of the collective.

Note humanity has progress naturally with moral issues like slavery [near eradication] and racism [reasonable progress] on a collective basis without any immutable dictatorial moral standards from theistic religion.

Your proposal 'let Johnny be bad' is immoral in itself and out of alignment with the spontaneous progress of the collective.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]

cron