Anyone on here particularly religious?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Hollowway, Jul 24, 2017.

  1. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Well I mean...science doesn't support this belief. What people have faith in is no bother to me, but there is simply no evidence to suggest that energy somehow becomes non-neutral by flowing through a brain (also, that doesn't seem to make sense because we're not reusing the same energy to do so, so if energy is tofu, it doesn't have long to acquire someone's flavor), that there is "residual energy" as such, that consciousness could be carried on that energy in any level, let alone reconstruct an entire body.

    And I can't think of any sense in which science is supporting some sort of connected life -- in terms of the building blocks of everything (energy/matter), we all share the same resources, but that isn't exactly cutting edge research.

    So I guess if you can't construct an argument of how science supports this, why try to bring science into it at all? Talking about "energy" in a vague sense is about as scientific as Buddhism.
     
  2. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    4,003
    Likes Received:
    503
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    If we're going to talk about science, we can't keep using the word "energy" as if it's a thing - energy is not a "thing" or a soul, a spirit, it's simply the word that describes the capacity for something to do work.

    It's one thing to say we're all "connected" because we breath the same air, or walk on the same ground, etc.- it's a nice sentiment, but there is no spiritual sharing of "energy" between people.
     
    Explorer and vilk like this.
  3. feraledge

    feraledge Heard the Good News about Maple Fretboards? Contributor

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    Cool, a number of ethologists, biologists and ecologists are headed in a different direction. I'm pointing it out because they are scientists and they write of their struggles to show the complexity of life. Hunter-gatherers didn't have that problem. Things are what they are, but if you don't have those experiences then it's very hard to imagine the probability.
    I think there's a very practical reason behind what people would consider religious phenomena, no god necessary. Your experiences are different, mine were too. But definitively asserting that it's all cut and dry, energy is energy, matter is matter, all but fosters a dualism where anything beyond that is defaulted in the god category. I think both sides get some right and some wrong.
    If we were to accept scientific deduction as the only measure, it's good to be reminded that until recent decades scientists thought turtles were deaf, knew nothing about bat's echolocation, and didn't know that whales sang. Science expands only when a thesis is realized to be wrong.
    And in the end, energy might be neutral. It may just be that the world is full of fauna and flora with varying degrees of cognizance and empathy. I'm not relying on that validation, as I've stated. But there are scientists exploring it.
     
    Unleash The Fury likes this.
  4. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    You're conflating some things. Ethologists, biologists, and ecologists are not trying to track the flow off consciousness in energies between life forms.

    Yes, science is a process of constant refinement of knowledge, and within that system almost anything is possible, but current evidence makes some things a lot more probable than not. Things like turtles hearing, whales singing, and bats echolocating are on a different scale of plausibility than say... a person's spirit existing on in energy such that it is capable of being seen and interacting with the physical world. When you're flying around with hypotheses that are that devoid of hard evidence, you can pretty much put them there with Jesus is lord...reincarnation...divine miracles, etc. It's not scientific in any practical sense.
     
  5. feraledge

    feraledge Heard the Good News about Maple Fretboards? Contributor

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    But you're wrong: Peter Wohlben, Carl Safina, Sy Montgomery, Virginia Morell (science writer, not scientist, but her books follow biologists and ethologists who are studying this), just to name a few. This is something I actively study and from an anthropological perspective.
    You're talking definitively as though I have no idea what I'm talking about. Science is a mode of inquiry not a cohesive set of conclusions or list of permissible questions.
    My hypothesis is clearly a hypothesis: perhaps energy is not neutral. As I've said, even if it is, it's not end of the road for me by any stretch of the imagination.
    My statement is that there's more to the connection between all life than biology can CURRENTLY explain. Doesn't mean it's not there and my direct experiences require no validation. But if you'd like, I'll let you know personally the next time a great horned owl warns that someone is going to die and I'll just keep you posted as/when news comes in.
    I'm talking about personal experience. To conflate that with Jesus is laughable for me: a figure whose first record of existing is over 40 years after "he" supposedly died and in that telling he was a celestial being. I get why you would say that, but I'm not telling you about my own experiences, not something I've read in a book. I'm not expecting you or anyone to believe that sight unseen, but because you are, as I'm saying, dumping all this in the god category doesn't mean it is that simple. I'm saying it isn't.
    Truly speaking, it shouldn't matter at all, but because religious people are destroying the world, it's important to understand the real phenomena that people attribute to the existence of their chosen god. If you just write it off and people have, as I have, indisputable and otherwise inexplicable experiences, then you push them back to god. This is a massive failure of prominent atheists. And that's coming from a militant atheist.
     
  6. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,363
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Take a look at what science is. It is knowledge. In a formal sense, it is knowledge based on repeatably observable facts. Pseudoscience is not knowledge that is wrong, no, it's just that which is passed off as knowledge based on observable fact that it not. Spiritualism that claims connections to science is always pseudoscience, because there are no repeatably observable facts.

    A hypothesis is an educated guess as to the outcome of some measurable experiment. The term hypothesis has no place in a discussion about inobservable spiritual energy or the like.

    Things like the claims that turtles were thought to be deaf, because they don't have ears are a little dubious. The more correct statement was that no one studied reptile hearing until after the 1950's, so scientists didn't know. Educators (religious ones, to boot) inferred from the lack of scientific discourse over reptilian hearing and the folk conjecture that turtles had no ears, that turtles were "deaf as a post."

    I think that's a huge misstep, when it comes to lay people debating science. It's a series of false equivalencies that lead to weird places. It follows the logical form: <<Science says "X." Science used to not know about "Y." Not knowing about Y = Being wrong about Y. Being wrong about Y = Being wrong about everything. Therefore not X.>> But every time I hear someone say that Einstein's model of how things behave at comic scales and near the speed of light contradict's Newton's Laws of motion, I die a little on the inside.
     
  7. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Your citations don't match your hypothesis. I'm not sure what you see in clonal colonies or smart octopuses that has any bearing on consciousness existing after death. It doesn't sound at all like these people are researching that, though it does sound like only about half are scientists.

    Given that we're not wrapping up biological sciences any time soon, I feel that's a tautology. But I don't see any testable hypotheses in this area, like any open questions that science is trying to grapple with. Like I'm not ever thinking, "How does X happen?" with respect to consciousness and death / any sort of existence after death.

    From my perspective, you are religious! Because the definition of a deity can vary so much from a human-like figure to a general guiding consciousness, I group anyone that rejects overwhelming direct evidence to accept a faith-based belief in the supernatural as being religious. You might say your personal experience brings this into the realm of science, but my born-again Christian friend says the exact same things about her experiences, physically interacting with Jesus. As an evidence-based person, why would I take your owl-warnings as any more real as her Jesus-is-my-bff beliefs?
     
  8. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    4,003
    Likes Received:
    503
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I'd like to take a moment to point out that a person's title doesn't have any bearing on how close they are to any objective truth. Scientists are capable of doing science wrong. Things are not true because a scientist said so.
     
  9. feraledge

    feraledge Heard the Good News about Maple Fretboards? Contributor

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    I guess your quick Googling is better than my research! Haha!
    My primary point here is that there is more to consciousness than matter and energy. Leaving the dead out of it, the mind of an octopus and hive mind are exceptionally relevant because the prevailing scientific thought is the uphill battle to show intent and cognition in other species, and given that, how it might function. In which case, all the aforementioned people are investigating that in varying degrees, but the results are telling. I'm more comfortable taking all of that a step farther and I acknowledge it.
    But the core of this, tied directly to the field of cognition, is that the currently accepted scientific understandings about complex ecological and biological relationships has a lot of room to grow.

    I think your self-assuredness is laughable. Religion too has a definition. Durkheim's is the standard: religion has a core of established and organized mythos and ethics which is worshipped through a church. I have and am talking about literally none of those things! I'm saying that there are things that science lacks an understanding of in this life and as long as those who want to use science as their sole refutation of what is perceived as "religious experience" are going to just bash things you have read versus things people experience.
    The problem, as I have acknowledged, is that personal experiences can sound crazy. I don't expect you to take my word, which is why I'm offering to document it in real time for you. Could be weeks, could be years, but it happens enough. Doesn't mean it will account to anything for you, but I'm not shivering in my assertions that they do happen and I'm hardly the only one.

    I don't think it's a stretch to presume our entire world views and perspectives are radically different. I'm typing this as I rub one of daughters' back who is sick and in between posts I foraged some sassafras root and elderberry to soothe her stomach and grabbed a bunch of chicken of the woods mushrooms for dinner, got yelled at by chipmunks and inspected by hoverflies, hung with some turtles for a minute.
    I'm not sweating your thinking on my experiences at all.
     
  10. feraledge

    feraledge Heard the Good News about Maple Fretboards? Contributor

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    This is my favorite yet! Hahaha! When science becomes religion. And, yes, that hits on all of Durkheim's definition.
     
  11. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Citation needed.
     
  12. feraledge

    feraledge Heard the Good News about Maple Fretboards? Contributor

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    Finished an 11k word essay on perception last week, the essay on religion is likely on its way to being a book. How many citations you want? Unless your being facetious about what my stated intents are in what I've said here. In which case, have fun.
     
  13. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Well they can't be your citation -- but seriously, I think the majority view among scientists is that there need not be any additional mechanism besides matter and energy for consciousness (which doesn't take much off the table). Going further, people like me don't really see the need for much more than some neurons, chemicals, and electricity. So if you're going to lead out with such an assumption, that is your main point, then shouldn't you back it up? And back it up in proportion to the degree that is not being pursued by the scientific community? I mean, I know there's a climate change denier scientist here and there, but a citation from a few of them wouldn't convince me that there is much evidence to support their position.
     
  14. feraledge

    feraledge Heard the Good News about Maple Fretboards? Contributor

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    @narad always appreciate your dick mode. Thanks for the douche response. I'm a writer. I'm not talking about essays and books that are just my Facebook rants. You're asking for citations and when I started with a few, all of whom are following up the ethological and biological work that Darwin started, you immediately threw them out. So, yeah, why bother? I can provide citations and then you'll say they don't matter or aren't relevant. So fuck it. You want my research but you think my questions and experience are bullshit. Why bother?
     
  15. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Dude, a name isn't a citation, and frankly I didn't see anything to suggest that those people were suggesting the need to appeal to the supernatural (to define here as "more than matter and energy"). Don't take a failure to support your point as an attack on my part. I at least went around to read what those people were about, and honestly sounded more like you were trying to shanghai their research into shared ecosystems and animal intelligence to bolster your own arguments about a supernatural consciousness, when the two are not connected. I already asked once to clarify this.

    But on top of that I don't count pop-sci writers as scientists, or, to reference TedEH, good scientists. Usually good scientists are leading departments at good universities and that if I wandered through the Cambridge neuroscience department taking a poll of how many people believe that we need more than matter and energy to explain consciousness, I know what the result would be.
     
  16. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    4,003
    Likes Received:
    503
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    To be fair, I've never denied that science and religion have a lot in common. There is always a certain level of trust (belief, if you absolutely must use the word) that those who spend time studying a particular field are closer to the truth than one might have the time or capacity to get to themselves.

    I won't speak for anyone else, but if I were to say I "believe in science" (I generally wouldn't word it that way), what I'm really saying is that given the sources of information available to me, science being one, religion being one, personal experience, anecdotes, etc., all being sources of information about the world, I put more trust in the scientific process than I do in the majority of other sources, and acknowledge that, just like everyone else, the best I can do is take the information I get and come to my own conclusion. The purpose of science is not to claim any absolute truth for one to believe in, but instead to give you a system to challenge the knowledge you already have.

    But we don't receive information directly "from science", we get it from scientists. Someone has to do the work and propagate their interpretation of results. Scientists are just people, with opinions and biases and flaws, and every piece of scientific knowledge gets filtered through that human element at some point, even if that's your own personal "filter". If it were a perfect infallible system that uncovers objective truth, then there'd be no need for conversations like this in the first place.
     
  17. marcwormjim

    marcwormjim SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    786
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    Not here
    Bump.

    Hey winners: Type about Jim Carey's recent antics. I don't care to debate anyone's epiphanies - I learn more reading than reacting.
     
  18. Spaced Out Ace

    Spaced Out Ace 0 0 1 0 0 6 5 0 3\

    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes Received:
    498
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Location:
    Washington
    What antics? You mean his existential rant or whatever on the E! Channel?
     
  19. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Yes, it's called "Unitarianism/Universalism". In facat, in modern UU-ism, you don't even need to be religious (i.e. atheists are accepted) -- It's an organization of individuals that have a (mostly) common view of what society should be like. It can be very much like "The Frantics" Worships R Us:


    But even within the group as a whole, there's a small sub-sect that believes you must believe in a higher-power and atheists should not be allowed into the organization. :shrug:
     
  20. Stuck_in_a_dream

    Stuck_in_a_dream SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    121
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    As an atheist, I'm a non-believer in biblical "benevolent" deities, but this does not mean that I am an activist either. I do believe humans are better off without organized religions, but I don't think you can insult/debate people out of it. Proper education is the only way. Does this mean I automatically rule out a creator, not necessarily, but if a creator exists, it is not what any of the religious books had foretold. In that sense, if a creator does exist, this universe feels more like a lab experiment or a simulation of some sort than anything else.

    As far as believing fantasies based on own experiences, I'd rather be more cautious, and less confident in my limited human perception. For example, our vision is relatively mediocre to other species (birds of prey), and our intelligence is not too special either compared to what can be possible (recent AI advances). What we perceive may be farthest from the truth, which IMHO can only be sought via Math & Physics. Our human intuition is completely useless when it comes to explaining why the universe behaves the way it does. The pillars of modern Physics (which explain Chemistry > Biology > everything else) are based on completely unintuitive ideas. Quantum Mechanics & Relativity have very little to do with our daily experience, yet these are our best tools to understand this universe.
     
    CrazyDean likes this.

Share This Page