belief and practice arent the same thing,,,, one can believe adultery is wrong and still commit it (hence the feeling some have of 'guilt')

when we define PRACTICES we generally refer to specific religions and their rules,,,ie whether one is Christian, Buddhist, Catholic,,,etc,,

when we define BELIEF, we are generally referring to theism, atheism, or agnosticism

I'm not an atheist because I can neither prove that some sort being or forces don't exist nor that such forces had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Universe.

I'm not a theist, however, because I see religions as being flawed human contrivances that use wishful thinking, dogma and mythology, in much the same manner as a large electrical current passes through a short circuit, to rationalize the extremely improbable-- they are the path of least resistance.

I usually call myself an agnostic because it's the only other choice offered. I'm really more of a secular humanist.

-Kerry O.

"Excuse me. What does God need a starship for?" --Captain Kirk in Star Trek V

When I read this I felt it was a bit strange.

You talk about religious thinking as being flawed human contrivances that use wishful thinking (i.e. Optimism) to rationalize the extremely improbable.

Yet, what is the ulternative?

When we look the world with close objective reasoning we recognize that it is indeed an extremely improbable event. In fact, considering that it supposedly just happened by accident from nothing we can even say that it's basically an impossible event.

So what do some people do? Some people (and certainly not all scientist by any stretch of the imagination), but some people use what they consider to be "rational thinking" to create flawed human contrivance of quite pessimistic thinking to rationalize the extremely improbable.

For example, many secular-minded people would rather believe that there must have been an infinite number of "accidental" universes. All starting randomly from "nothing" in order to justify that the universe we happen to live in just accidently turned out to be an extremely improbable possiblity.

So some people are reaching for absurd explanations to support an optimistic outlook, whilst other people are reaching for absurd explanations to support a pessimistic outlook. In both cases, the explanations are indeed equally absurd and ungrounded.

One thing that I find truly ironic is that many secularists reject the very notion of "information" existing without physical form. In other words, their main objection to a "Spiritual World" of unseen and undetectable forms or beings stems from the fact that they simply reject the idea that any such non-material world can even make any sense.

Yet, how ironic is that in the face of Modern Science?

Modern Science demands that information, not only can, but must exist beyond are ability to physically detect it.

Part of that comes from the scientific postulates of the very properties of the so-called "Quantum Fields" from which the material objective phenomena arises.

I was just watching lectures on Quantum Mechanics last night where they were clarifying the difference between quantum information and classical information. And the "Quantum No-Cloning Rule" which is an established pillar of morder Quantum Mechanics. If you understand the "Quantum No-Cloning Rule" and it's significance, it's basically demanding that information exists in the quantum fields that simply cannot be accessed via any physical means EVER. Period.

Moreover, if you take the scientific theory of the Inflationary Hot Big Bang back to it's earliest origin, the theory itself rests on the very foundational idea that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation out of this non-physical quantum field of "information".

In other words, hasn't science basically already demanded that non-physical "information" must exist for any of their theories to even work?

So with that in mind, then why is it so hard for secularists to believe in a non-physical conscious mind from whence this non-physical information arises?

Why is that considered to be such an absurd and non-scientific idea when in fact it is this very idea upon which the most fundamental theories of modern science actually stand?

I had two uncles on my dad's side. The younger one said he was agnostic. He explained it to me as a window turner on an old car that rattled. He first asked me how I would get rid of the rattle. I said I would get the window turner replaced. He said that only fixed the window turner so how would I get rid of the rattle. I said I would try to tighten up the window turner. He said that would work technically but theoretically it would still rattle because you have only fixed the window turner and because you haven't gotten rid of the rattle. He said that in your mind the rattle still exists. Whoa! Finally, I asked, "So how would you get rid of the rattle?" He said, "Grind up the window turner and eat it so that it would rattle with you. That way it isn't the window turner rattling but you that is rattling."

Glad I could help.

First, I don't define wishful thinking as you do, i.e. optimism. We all die and depart this plane of existence. No amount of optimism is going to change that, not on your part and not on mine or anyone elses.

My alternative is to just go boldy forth and say life is what is. It is and then we all go down into the dark. When it's done it's done-- make every day count and try to make a mark that will nestle into the racial memory of our species and its accomplishments.

Eyes wide open.




That's like saying the Power Ball Lottery is good personal financial policy-- it can be shown scientifically that someone always wins eventually so it must be 'true'.

Funny how it never happens to most people. Funnier still is the fact that if completely ruins the lives of a lot of people that DO win it.



I've been told I was clinically dead for a few minutes. I have MRI images on CD that demonstrate the reason why that happened AND its aftermath. I remember vividly what if felt like and what if felt like to drift in and out of a comotose state while the rest of the world went on its merry way without me. I can tell you what excruciating pain that doesn't relent feels like and how, like the mythical Cybil, death would seem like a release.

Having undergone those experiences personally, I don't see where I'm rationalizing anything--that's not being pessimistic, that living in the here and now and it's as real as it gets.




So? That's why I'm an agnostic. I admit I don't have all the answers. But on the other hand, I never accept Arguments from Ignorance, the belief that just because one takes that stance means the other person, by default, MUST have the 'correct' answer as being valid.



I'm always willing to listen to evidence or a good argument for samesuch. But I won't leave skepticism at the door. Nor will I accept that one has to check one's skepticism at the door lest it "Heisenburg" the 'experiment'. Sorry, I think that's a cop out on the part of those trying to make the case.

<snippage>




Not necissarily. The scientist will admit his fallibility and limitations. When's the last time you've heard a priest, shaman, or Holy Man confess the same without adding the catch phrase that " God works in mysterious ways, so He (what they *really mean is "I") still have it right and the stupid scientists have it wrong as usual."



Because fanatastic claims demand equally rigorous proof, and all I hear most of the time is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that sounds more like it came from a carnival faith healer.



State the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.


-Kerry O.

well gosh I dunno. However, I'm pretty sure if one really believes God is actually speaking to them, besides being unbelievably arrogant, it's pretty well recognized to be a symptom of insanity.
But hey, tell ya what. Don't take my word for it. Why don't you go around and tell everyone you know that you really believe God is speaking to you and giving you the secrets of the universe, or balancing your checkbook, or whatever the hay you think God is telling you, and see what happens.
With any luck, someone will care enough to get you some help.

Unless of course, this is all a scam and you're just looking to start your own religion and be the next Jim Jones and this is just a test run to see how well it's received.

Actually most of the shamans I know do indeed confess that they don't know. And that's precisely what they mean when they say, "God works in mysterious ways".

Also, I would never call scientists stupid in general because I am a scientist. The bottom line is that all scientists are not secular atheists like many people on the Interent attempt to claim.

I don't see my spiritual views to be in conflict with any scientific knowledge at all. Therefore there is no conflict.

If someone is claiming that "science" somehow supports atheism, then it is that individual who is stupid, not science in general.

There is no conflict between anything that science knows and my spiritual views.

Your paranoia is showing.

As far as I'm concerned you don't even need to point to the weirdos, it's sufficient to just point to some of the mainstream religions.

Sure, religion can be abused just like anything else. Look at how Hitler intended to abuse the science of selective breeding. He didn't even need to appeal to the supernatural to create his cult. All he appealed to was science.

So it's just like with anything else, a knife can be used to slice a piece of wedding cake, or it can be used to stab your best friend in the back. But putting the blame on all knives everytime someone abuses a knife is utterly foolish.

Science in the wrong hands can be used for just as much evil as anything else.

Myself, I prefer "God writes straight with crooked lines". But you know the Abrahamics-- they preceed from the assumption that Unbelievers are fools, dupes or demi-devils, so the 'crooked lines' must be purged.

Ugh.

"Mystery" to me speaks more to the concepts like 'The Ying and The Yang' or that of The Tao. Such concepts seek harmony, not arrogant divisiveness.



Then you are indeed fortunate and far be it from me to hold you to any account for your beliefs. I'm quite sure you'd return the favor were I to make more of my own more public.

To me, it's usually better policy, though, to be like The Uncarved Block. But that's just me being me.


-Kerry O.

Well, I'm sure that you've read enough of my posts over the years to know that I'm in 100% agreement with that.

I'm not the slightest bit pleased with the Abrahamics myself.

I just hate to see that Abrahamic mentality turned about face to the point where people are suggesting just the opposite: That any belief in any kind of spiritual essence is foolish.

It goes from one extreme to the other.

I prefer the middle path. It's not foolish to consider either possiblity.

I would never "put-down" an atheist for not wanting to believe in a spiritual essence of reality.

What does get me a bit 'ticked' though is when an atheist attempts to hold "science" up as being in their corner. That simply isn't true and it really irks me when I see people attempting to make that argument in any way shape or form.

Although, having said that, I think science does clash with the Abrahamics. In fact, it's often the Abrahamics who are attempting to belittle science in an attempt to support their self-conflicting dogma.

So in a sense I can see the 'knee-jerk' response from the secular community to want to latch onto science as supporting their agenda.

But like you say,


There are spiritual concepts out there that do indeed seek harmony and not arrogant divisiveness. So let's not trample all over them in the name of science just because the Abrahamics are so overly arrogant about their dogma.

That's really all I ask.

Abra wrote:



James, with all respect and genuine interest...

If that were really the case, how do they have the ability to know?

The No-Cloning Theorem with proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

Paranoid? Naw. Just a realist. Gosh, how many nutbags in history who did really bad things, claiming God talked to them first, can one name?

You? A scientist? What's your field, atheletic nutrition? Over and over again you use the "science can't prove it doesn't exist so I believe in it" argument. Which no scientst, worth his sheepskin, would do. That's not science, it's religion. You can dress it up in your pseudo scientific mumbojumbo all you want. All your arguments boil down to the same thing--Science can't prove it doesn't exist, so I believe in it.
While you are right, in that science can't disprove a lot of things, absence of evidence is not evidence. And just because some things are currently not understood completely, like quantum mechanics, this is not evidence for a spiritual component of reality. Quantum mechanics is a useful tool for describing how much of the universe works, at least on the quantum level. However, much of what it lacks can be filled in by the application of string theory, M theory, and supersymetry. None of which, in even the slightest way, postulates the existance of a "spirit".

Your attemps to validate your belief system using science is an epic fail. You believe in a something because it makes you feel better, plain and simple. Which is fine. But it's not scientific. And you lose all credibility, in my opinion, when you write that God talks to you directly. Naw, that's not exactly true. You lose all credibility by trying to tie science to your belief system. You just look like a crazy person by saying God talks to you directly.

Science doesn't "support" atheism. Neither does it "support" any religious or spiritual or however you want to label it, belief system.
Science postulates, through mathematics, experimentation, and theory--backed by mathematics or experimentation, how the universe works. The default position, if you will, is not to believe (in anything) unless proven by mathematics or experimentation.
Since there has never been any mathematics or experimentation done that shows a spiritual component to reality, any belief in such must therefore be, at best, philosophy.
Your attempts to show that your beliefs are true and correct because of the lack of evidence against them only serves to illustrate your lack of understanding of basic scientific principals.

Well as far as scientists are concerned, "it really is the case". This is a proven mathematical theorem in QM. Not just a conjecture.

In fact, it's also being currently used in technology for the purpose of truly unbreakable cryptography. "Truly unbreakable" assumes that the "Quantum No-Cloning Rule" is indeed true. Which, as I say, has become a mathematical theorem, not merely a conjecture. It has been proven to be true mathematically.

It actually stems from the law of complementarity. Although the "Quantum No-Cloning Rule" wasn't officially recognized until many years after the law of complementarity had been well-established. In hind-sight the scientists who discovered the quantum no-cloning rule were basically slapping themselves on the forehead saying, "How could we have been so stupid, of course this has to be true, it follows directly from the law of complementarity"

So, in answer to your question. Yes, it really is the case, and they have the ability to know in the same way that they have the ability to deduce the law of complementarity.

Of course, all of this assumes that Quantum Mechanics itself is a valid theory and will continue to stand. If the law of complementarity falls, than so does the rest of QM.

In a similar way, if the "No Cloning Rule" ever fails, then so does QM.

So to ask whether or not it's really "True", is the same as asking whether or not QM is true. And, of course, there always exists a very real possiblity that QM itself could fall at some point in the future. So that possiblity is alway open. However, QM is the current scientific theory today.

We just part company on that particular opinion.

That's all.

You speak about science and 'belief'. But science has absolutely nothing to do with 'belief'.

In other words, you say:


I say that this is utter nonsense. Many scientists had very profound 'beliefs' in their conjecturs before they were actually proven to be 'facts'.

Eistein was quite confident in his theory of Relativity before it had been experimentally verified. String theorists obviously 'believe' in the existence of strings, and even 11-dimensions of spacetime, even though none of these things have yet to be confirmed by science.

Science has nothing at all to do with "belief". Nada, zip, zilch.

Science tries to deal only in observational 'facts'. Things which can be observed and verified via experimental techniques. It doesn't deal with anything beyond that one way or the other.

If you think for one second that I'm suggesting that 'science' should trash the scientific method and instead employ a method of 'belief', they you are grossly mistaken. Like Redykelous had posted in the past, science and religion are two entirely different things.

I in no way put down anything that science does. I'm a physicist myself. I love science and mathematics both. I completely accept the methods of science and all of the 'confirmed' observations. Although, even in that realm I'm forced to accept the word of some other scientists because I can't always make the observations directly myself. And sometimes scientists makes mistakes. Theories fall, and/or are replaced by updated theories that may add entirely new information concerning the nature of previous "observations".

There are some things that I personally 'believe' are so well-rooted in science that they will never be overturned. Like evolution and the 'fact' that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I think we have enough information to recognize both of these things to be a 'fact'.

However, like I say, there is nothing at all in science that conflict with any of my spiritual views. Therefore why not continue to postulate them and make conjectures about them? Who knows? Maybe someday some of these postulates and conjectures may actually become provable.

In the meantime, there is nothing in science that conflicts when anything that I "believe". And as long as that remains the case, then there is no 'scientific' reason to reject these 'beliefs'.

I also recognize that a 'belief' does not equate to a 'fact' and I don't confuse the two.

I would beg to differ with you on your claim here. You say that String Theory and supersymmety can filled in much of what QM lacks.

That's news to me. I've been following this stuff for years and I've never heard any such claims by any reputable scientist.

On the contrary, String Theory presumes QM as a foundational postulate, just as it also presumes many of the constraints of Relativity to be true.

At BEST, all String Theory has 'promised' to do is meld together Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a seemless theory. And it hasn't even come close to fulfilling that "promise".

There is absolutely NOTHING in String Theory that 'promises' to explain away complementarity, or anything close to that. String theory makes absolutely no 'promises' about resolving any of the philosophical issues associated with QM at all.

In fact, if it did resolve them then QM would fall. But how ironic would that be since String Theory is already using QM as a foundational basis? You'd end up having a theory that basically destroys the very theory upon which is stands. There's got to be some self-referenced paradoxes associated with that.

Where did you ever get that idea that String Theory promises to resolve the mysteries of QM? Can you point to a book? I'd be interested in reading it.

Well again, I sympathize with your view on this. Especially when taken in the Abrahamic context. It's obvious that the Abrahamic context of God is extremely dangerous. Why? Well, because in the Abrahamic traditions God "commands" people to do things and the loyal followers "jump" to "obey" Without Question! In fact, in the Abrahamic tradition it is considered the ultimate sin of blaspheme to question the directives and commandments of God.

Since I don't view "god" in this way these kind of insane pictures of "god" simply don't apply. I don't automatically "jump" with "blind obedience" to do the will of God with unquestioned loyalty.

My view of "god" is quite contrary to that. I won't hesitate to ask God why he/she/it has made a 'request' of me, if this should ever be done. I would also view it precisely as that - a request. Which I can easily turn down if I feel it is not something that I personally would support. In other words, if in a dream "god" asked me to do something that ran against my own personal morals I wouldn't hesitate to turn "god" down and suggest he find someone else to do his bidding.

I don't believe in 'bully gods'. I don't 'fear' god in the least. As far as I'm concerned if god is a big bad bully who needs to be feared, then it's not a god at all, it's a demon.

I also don't believe in a god who 'needs' anything from me. If a so-called "god" needs my help to accomplish some end, then that's a sure sign that it's not a god at all but rather a truly pathetic helpless spirit who's merely attempting to get me to do something that it can't do on its own.

This is why I totally renounce evangelism as being an 'ungodly act'. It flies in the face of the very idea of an omnipotent God. Especially in terms of 'saving souls'. If god needs help 'saving souls' then that particular "god" is truly pathetic and helpless on its own.

You are wrong about that. The Abrahamic God according to the Jewish tradition DEMANDS QUESTIONING.

So you are talking about an Abrahamic God which Abraham did not believe in!



But again, if there is only one God, then it is the same one
as the Abrahamic God no matter what name you use!



You just don't like the line of BS that somebody fed you in your
philosophical infancy!

just out of curiousity, did you even read all the words I wrote?

In any case, you are quite wrong in your assertion that science has nothing to do with belief, per se. Science tends to destroy or remove the kinds of fallacious beliefs you and most others like you like to have. If only you had any idea what science was and how it worked...oi vay....
Sorry, I don't believe you're a physicist. From your recent posts, I would guess you're just a kid w/ delusions of grandeur. Kinda sad, actually.

Your assertion that "I say that this is utter nonsense. Many scientists had very profound 'beliefs' in their conjecturs before they were actually proven to be 'facts'", is actually utter nonsense. What you imply is that any time someone comes up w/ an idea, they also believe in said idea. Einstein believed in Relativity because it fit the math, of the time. Or rather, the math showed Relativity to be true. He didn't just come up with ideas and then try to get the math to fit the idea. Well, until later in his life when he was trying to unify gravity w/ electromagnetism--and failed utterly.
String theorists do not obviously believe in String Theory. Neither do any good scientists believe in any unproven theory. And by "believe" I mean being certain something is true. Lots of scientists might THINK something is true, but yet unproven. In which case, they use math and the scientific method to either prove or disprove it. In the specific case of String Theory, where no known experiment can be performed to either prove it or disprove it, only the math of this theory can be tested.
Believing in something w/o proof is not science, nor scientific. It is, I believe, what some people call "faith". Y'know, what you have, when you believe in your spirit thing.

All your postering and bluster still amounts to the same thing. There is no proof against "spirituality" so you believe in it. Nevermind that there isn't any proof for it. Lack of evidence is evidence. Like I said before, any scientists worth his sheepskin knows that argument is b.s..

But what do I know? I don't have a direct line to God, like you do...