Maybe First Baptist Church is not so powerful...

[Ocklawaha]

Bob, Nothing like two old hippies talking science and religion. Love ya man!    Psychedelic!  lol

SOLID BABY! Shine on...

[ronchamblin]

"Faith is what you exercised when you plopped down on your chair to write that last piece Ron, how did you "know" that chair would hold you up?"  quote from Ock.


Ock.  I did not have faith.  I expected the chair to hold up.  I had confidence that it would hold up.  I knew it would hold up.   

The classic meaning and use of the idea of "faith" is in regard to the religious use of it.  When we delve into the discussions of chairs holding one up....... well.... what is the sense of it?  We both know that we are talking about the tendency of "believers" to "believe" something based on the faith that it is true..... and this, even when there is not a shred of evidence supporting the belief.

Is there any evidence that the chair is there, and that it is substantial?  And that it will most probably hold me up?

Why the games with such nonsense as comparing religious beliefs concerning figments of the mind, and solid chairs sitting upon the floor, when we both know the real issue?  To do so is a little fun of course.  But do we ever tire of it?   

[ronchamblin]

"Then we have to explain telepathic experiences, how is it a dog knows when his master comes home, or, that animals know when a major earthquake is near? These experiences can't be seen, or measured, but somehow they exist, existence in a realm of the spiritual."  Quote from Ock. 

The dogs and other animals have very sensitive ears, and perhaps vibrational sensitivities we don't know about, other senses we are not aware of, senses that are however, a consequence of physiological structures, having nothing to do with the "telepathic", as you've mentioned.  A dogs sense of the time of day, a sensitive ear, a means to sense vibrations upon the ground, and an excellent sense of smell.... all of these things allow the dog to "know" when his owner is close, even a block away.  This is not telepathy.  And the earthquake "sense" is certainly the consequence of the animals sense of hearing, sensing of pressure changes, and the sense of ground vibrations.  There is nothing mysterious.  Nothing otherworldly.  Only ignorance of sciences allows one to assume the mysterious. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is. 

[ronchamblin]

“Skepticism is the default position because the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. But who is the believer and who is the skeptic?"  Quote by Ock.

In order to have some order upon the earth, and within our minds, we must begin with observing via our senses the phenomena in the environment.  We stabilize our lives, our engagements with the environment so that we can survive as individuals, and as a species.  We rest, with peace in our minds.   

Out of this stable condition emerges possibilities.  We begin to exercise our minds to embrace more and more possibilities.  We stretch our imaginations to "see" all kinds of things, all kinds of possibilities.  We imagine the existence of all kinds of things, such as gods, and processes such as telepathy.

Out of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual.

The simple folk however, being without the equipment of knowledge of the sciences, were inclined to hold to the belief in the otherworldly and the spiritual, and perhaps the telepathic, partially because of habit, and partially because of the mental and spiritual benefits from it.

The believer is the individual who seems to believe in spite of reasons not to.  The skeptic is the individual who, as a consequence of having the necessary mental tools as offered by the laws of the universe, and held within what most call the sciences, is forced by way of logic and simple rational thinking, to abandon the otherworldly, the spiritual, and the idea of telepathy, these ideas held by the cave man, and to boldly claim that there is nonsense about us, and that he or she is not willing to engage in it. 

Given a stable condition wherein the evidences in the environment are for all to observe and count, it is the burden of the believer to prove the existence of anything other than what we see, observe, and experience.  Yes, I admit that anything is possible. But what about the probabilities given to all these possibilities?  The skeptic is simply saying that we should be a little cautious, and should perhaps weigh the possibilities against the laws of the universe, so that we might select carefully what be believe exists.  The "believer" is too careless, believing, almost as a consequence of cultural habit, in the gods still, and in things such as telepathy, both of which are ideas never having been supported by any evidence whatsoever. 

I choose to be a skeptic, and am wary of the believer, as some of them kill humans, and engage in wars, and shirk their responsibilities because they have faith that somebody else will take care of things, or that they shouldn't worry about this life too much, because they are going to have a good life after this one.

[ronchamblin]

Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?

+1

Its a little silly, frankly.

Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is. 

Don't mean to be arrogant.  It's just me.  Perhaps I'm an idiot.  Can't help it.  I don't know.  I do the best I can.  I try to engage people without getting into bullshit, as there is too much of it in our world.  I try to be frank.  I try to be honest.  I don't try to smooth out what I say.  I don't mean to hurt feelings. I try to be serious too, and helpful to all others, although they might not realize it.  Perhaps I can try to be less insensitive to certain realities, especially regarding the religious beliefs.       

[Cheshire Cat]

Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?

+1

Its a little silly, frankly.

Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is. 

Don't mean to be arrogant.  It's just me.  Perhaps I'm an idiot.  Can't help it.  I don't know.  I do the best I can.  I try to engage people without getting into bullshit, as there is too much of it in our world.  I try to be frank.  I try to be honest.  I don't try to smooth out what I say.  I don't mean to hurt feelings. I try to be serious too, and helpful to all others, although they might not realize it.  Perhaps I can try to be less insensitive to certain realities, especially regarding the religious beliefs.       

I think you need to back away from the books for a while and just live life as it is without expectations and experience the miracle of it.  The thing you miss when sharing your views about believers or a God is the fact that you are convinced your views are the correct views and those are the measure of all that you think regarding spirituality and reality.  Clinging so strongly to a set of views to the point that you are "wary" of believers is in and of itself an expression of fear. 

Above you stated that the "believer" is too careless. The question then becomes by whose standards are believers too careless, your own?  Of course your own and that is where the arrogance comes in.  You expect everyone to behave and believe according to your parameters.  Really?   

Your words were,
I choose to be a skeptic, and am wary of the believer, as some of them kill humans, and engage in wars, and shirk their responsibilities because they have faith that somebody else will take care of things, or that they shouldn't worry about this life too much, because they are going to have a good life after this one.

Where do you come up with this stuff? How do you know the personal beliefs of everyone else?  Because a person believes in something greater than themselves to say they are all of the things you listed above is just foolishness.

You are certainly not an "idiot" but are indeed "opinionated" to the point of testing ones patience. lol  No one understands the depth of the reality and universe we are living in and as such no one has all the answers.  Neither you or me.  The best we can do is follow our hearts and make our own choices however different they may be.  I for one have never been a fan of evangelical behaviors and that includes on the part of believers and those who embrace science.  Everyone must find their own truth and the fact is that those truth's will all be different and that's okay by me. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

Ron, I wonder if you understand when you are sharing your views the arrogance in your tone?  lmbo  The only time I have seen anyone as tied to their convictions as you are to science was the fanatical preachings of a religious zealot on a street corner.  You are very much that way in your judgements of others and need to "convert" them to your belief in science as the end all understanding of the universe when many scientists cannot decide amongst themselves what within their own discipline is real, imagined or properly postulated as a theory.  This tone of superiority is a bit overbearing at times. Carry on but don't expect to convert believers to your views, it isn't going to happen any more readily than you becoming a Transcendental Monk on a hillside singing the praises of Jehovah. lol 
Bottom line is the fact that the truth of reality is beyond human understanding and it is simply our inflated egos that has us believing we understand all that is.

Great Post!

[Starbuck]

Out of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual.

The simple folk however, being without the equipment of knowledge of the sciences, were inclined to hold to the belief in the otherworldly and the spiritual, and perhaps the telepathic, partially because of habit, and partially because of the mental and spiritual benefits from it.

The first part of your statement sounds as though you believe that religion is nothing but bad science. However, you close with an admission that believers (simple as we are) derive mental and spiritual benefits. I admit to the partial truth of both statements. There is plenty of bad science in religion, some of which needs a cure. There are, as Rodney Stark and Bainbridge observe in "Theory of Religion", sufficient mental and spiritual benefits to the adherents to keep religious phenomena rolling generation after generation.

That sociological reality itself should be sufficient evidence that religious belief (in general) has something to offer mankind.

As far as seeking objective scientific evidence to support (by definition) supernatural phenomena one does not decry the trade of plumbing because it cannot all be done with a hammer. When one seeks evidence to support an argument, the nature and context of the argument itself is relevent the type and strength of the evidence that is required.

[Cheshire Cat]

Out of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual.

The simple folk however, being without the equipment of knowledge of the sciences, were inclined to hold to the belief in the otherworldly and the spiritual, and perhaps the telepathic, partially because of habit, and partially because of the mental and spiritual benefits from it.

The first part of your statement sounds as though you believe that religion is nothing but bad science. However, you close with an admission that believers (simple as we are) derive mental and spiritual benefits. I admit to the partial truth of both statements. There is plenty of bad science in religion, some of which needs a cure. There are, as Rodney Stark and Bainbridge observe in "Theory of Religion", sufficient mental and spiritual benefits to the adherents to keep religious phenomena rolling generation after generation.

That sociological reality itself should be sufficient evidence that religious belief (in general) has something to offer mankind.

As far as seeking objective scientific evidence to support (by definition) supernatural phenomena one does not decry the trade of plumbing because it cannot all be done with a hammer. When one seeks evidence to support an argument, the nature and context of the argument itself is relevent the type and strength of the evidence that is required.

Good points!  I especially like the last paragraph however intend to test the statement by taking a hammer to the sink drain. 

[PeeJayEss]

That sociological reality itself should be sufficient evidence that religious belief (in general) has something to offer mankind.

As far as seeking objective scientific evidence to support (by definition) supernatural phenomena one does not decry the trade of plumbing because it cannot all be done with a hammer. When one seeks evidence to support an argument, the nature and context of the argument itself is relevent the type and strength of the evidence that is required.

Good points!  I especially like the last paragraph however intend to test the statement by taking a hammer to the sink drain. 

I like the hammer and plumbing thing, but I don't see how it is an applicable metaphor to scientific versus religious thinking. So science is a trade for understanding nature? What is the trade for understanding the supernatural? Wouldn't the supernatural also need to be experienced in some way in order for us to go about understanding it, whatever means we may use? And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?

Just because we believe something cannot be explained scientifically, does not mean "Why do you believe X?" is an invalid question. Since we are not born with knowledge of the supernatural, there has to be a story for how that belief was formed in our mind. The story of that belief, at least, is open for scrutiny. Everyone in the world believes something. At a minimum, 70% of them are wrong, so I think its something worth debating.

Additionally, what is the sociological reality? And why does it prove the benefit of religious belief?

[Cheshire Cat]

Not trying to bust your chops here PeeJayEss but what are the qualifiers for these two statements?  In essence, how do you know either claim to be true?

PeeJayEss:Since we are not born with knowledge of the supernatural, there has to be a story for how that belief was formed in our mind. The story of that belief, at least, is open for scrutiny.

Everyone in the world believes something. At a minimum, 70% of them are wrong, so I think its something worth debating.

[Ocklawaha]

If science is so completely positive that nothing is out there then what in the heck are we listening for? We've invested billions to study 'the darkness of space,' we even sent golden records up on our exploration space craft that introduced the human race to... um... NOTHING! Absolutely brilliant! Higher intelligence? I'd suggest that even the science you are so fond of is pretty darn certain we're not alone.  Photo:New Mexico radio telescope array.

[Starbuck]

" And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?"

Yes. Science makes the a priori assumption that it is measuring and assessing objective reality- the natural world. It lacks the tools to make a comparable assessment of supernatural phenomena. The supernatural realm by definition is outside scientific inquiry. Now science can be used to assess the natural manifestations of the supernatural (if any). For example, one can assess the social satisfaction, life expectancy, and general health metrics of religious persons and determine that they compare more favorably than with the metrics of non-religious. That might be "evidence" of a sort.

Supernatural assertions in the natural world have measurable validity, but that does not rule out a placebo effect and is not irrefutable "proof" of supernatural existence in a strict sense used by physical sciences. Ultimately our relationship with the supernatural comes down to "belief" or "faith". That takes the entire argument (by its essential nature) outside the realm of objective scientific inquiry.

One can analyze the materials, chemical content, history, social context, artistic expression, narrative of emotional impact, weight and various components of the Mona Lisa, or a Rembrandt but that does not help evaluate whether one masterwork is "better" than another. Ultimately that is in the heart and mind of the observer as a work of art speaks to the viewer during a specific experience of viewing at a certain point of time.

Likewise, religion and science are separate disciplines, each having its own criterion (tools) for evaluation... leading to my analogy of using a hammer for plumbing. Sometimes you might loosen a pipe, and sometimes all you might do is to break it.

[Cheshire Cat]

" And does saying something is supernatural mean that we cannot expend effort on trying to understand it scientifically?"

Yes. Science makes the a priori assumption that it is measuring and assessing objective reality- the natural world. It lacks the tools to make a comparable assessment of supernatural phenomena. The supernatural realm by definition is outside scientific inquiry. Now science can be used to assess the natural manifestations of the supernatural (if any). For example, one can assess the social satisfaction, life expectancy, and general health metrics of religious persons and determine that they compare more favorably than with the metrics of non-religious. That might be "evidence" of a sort.

Supernatural assertions in the natural world have measurable validity, but that does not rule out a placebo effect and is not irrefutable "proof" of supernatural existence in a strict sense used by physical sciences. Ultimately our relationship with the supernatural comes down to "belief" or "faith". That takes the entire argument (by its essential nature) outside the realm of objective scientific inquiry.

One can analyze the materials, chemical content, history, social context, artistic expression, narrative of emotional impact, weight and various components of the Mona Lisa, or a Rembrandt but that does not help evaluate whether one masterwork is "better" than another. Ultimately that is in the heart and mind of the observer as a work of art speaks to the viewer during a specific experience of viewing at a certain point of time.

Likewise, religion and science are separate disciplines, each having its own criterion (tools) for evaluation... leading to my analogy of using a hammer for plumbing. Sometimes you might loosen a pipe, and sometimes all you might do is to break it.

Well said Starbuck.  You are on a roll.