House Member
Posts: 3,523 
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 18th, 2007, 11:37 PM
There's no good evidence that prayers are answered. I still don't believe you. I think you're deluding yourself.
Quoting look3467
Thanks. You are in effect claiming that god sold your truck for you, sold your business for you, changed your wife's mind on your behalf and in your favour, and led you to a web site that supported and encouraged you. I wouldn't call those coincidences, stuff like that happens all the time, but you're choosing to interpret them as god working in your life when there are much simpler explanations. Your wife's change of heart is the one I find most interesting. You're giving her no credit at all for figuring anything out on her own or being responsible for what she does and how she relates to you, god gets it all. If I were your wife, I'd find that deeply insulting. You don't have proof that your prayers were answered, all you've got is some fairly mundane circumstances that worked out in your favour that you're interpreting in a self-serving way. Try praying for something that'd really make a difference to somebody besides yourself. Ask for the remission of all cancers, for instance, or pray for people who've lost a limb to regrow it, or pray that everybody with spinal chord injuries will be healed. You know what'll happen as well as I do: nothing; those prayers will not be answered. And then you'll have to explain why god responds to your mundane concerns but not to something that would be a great boon to many and is certainly within his capabilities, if he has the powers usually attributed to him.
I will tell you of a few instances since you asked.
There's no good evidence that prayers are answered. I still don't believe you. I think you're deluding yourself.
Council Member
Posts: 1,923
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
August 18th, 2007, 11:50 PM
For the rest, well, they won't know until they try it. And if they did once, twice, and got no results, is because it was asked amis.
Yes, to quote brother James:
Jam 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
A promise in a prayer.
"Ah! I never will win the lotto!" Well, if one doesn't buy a ticket, one many never know!
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Minority Observer84
At least the scoundrel knows to take the chances of the possibility; who knows... he thinks... it might just work. Yes to quote Lisa Simpson (mis-quoting Samuel Johnson):
"Prayer, the last refuge of the scoundrel"
"Prayer, the last refuge of the scoundrel"
For the rest, well, they won't know until they try it. And if they did once, twice, and got no results, is because it was asked amis.
Yes, to quote brother James:
Jam 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
A promise in a prayer.
"Ah! I never will win the lotto!" Well, if one doesn't buy a ticket, one many never know!
Peace>>>AJ
House Member
Posts: 3,523
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 18th, 2007, 11:58 PM
Quoting look3467
BS. You believe, ask for the remission of all cancers. You won't receive it. Prayer doesn't really work, look.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Council Member
Posts: 1,923
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
August 19th, 2007, 12:06 AM
But, on the personal level, one a one relationship with God, God does answer prayers. Call it selfish if you will, but that's one of the benefits of being in His kingdom.
So, my good friend, continue your journey, and I wish you the best.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Yes, prayer for others are well intentioned, but if there is no action on my part to go with those prayers, then I will agree with you.
Thanks. You are in effect claiming that god sold your truck for you, sold your business for you, changed your wife's mind on your behalf and in your favour, and led you to a web site that supported and encouraged you. I wouldn't call those coincidences, stuff like that happens all the time, but you're choosing to interpret them as god working in your life when there are much simpler explanations. Your wife's change of heart is the one I find most interesting. You're giving her no credit at all for figuring anything out on her own or being responsible for what she does and how she relates to you, god gets it all. If I were your wife, I'd find that deeply insulting. You don't have proof that your prayers were answered, all you've got is some fairly mundane circumstances that worked out in your favour that you're interpreting in a self-serving way. Try praying for something that'd really make a difference to somebody besides yourself. Ask for the remission of all cancers, for instance, or pray for people who've lost a limb to regrow it, or pray that everybody with spinal chord injuries will be healed. You know what'll happen as well as I do: nothing; those prayers will not be answered. And then you'll have to explain why god responds to your mundane concerns but not to something that would be a great boon to many and is certainly within his capabilities, if he has the powers usually attributed to him.
There's no good evidence that prayers are answered. I still don't believe you. I think you're deluding yourself.
There's no good evidence that prayers are answered. I still don't believe you. I think you're deluding yourself.
But, on the personal level, one a one relationship with God, God does answer prayers. Call it selfish if you will, but that's one of the benefits of being in His kingdom.
So, my good friend, continue your journey, and I wish you the best.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,923
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
August 19th, 2007, 12:14 AM
But if not, then I will still hold my faith as if I had never gotten Cancer.
There is a story of 3 men who were asked to deny their God to worship an earthly person king at the risk of being thrown into a fiery furnace.
They responded, we know that our God is able to deliver us from the fiery furnace, but if He doesn't, we will still not deny our God and still not bow to your king.
My attitude is similar.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Dexter Sinister
If I was detected to have cancer, Yes, I would pray. If, my God is willing to heal me, directly or with whatever resources are available to mankind, then so be it.
BS. You believe, ask for the remission of all cancers. You won't receive it. Prayer doesn't really work, look.
But if not, then I will still hold my faith as if I had never gotten Cancer.
There is a story of 3 men who were asked to deny their God to worship an earthly person king at the risk of being thrown into a fiery furnace.
They responded, we know that our God is able to deliver us from the fiery furnace, but if He doesn't, we will still not deny our God and still not bow to your king.
My attitude is similar.
Peace>>>AJ
House Member
Posts: 3,523
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 19th, 2007, 12:56 AM
I am a committed and unapologetic admirer of science and technology. It is demonstrably the best way we've ever found for understanding the world we live in, and in my view, if you reject its precepts, you are simply wrong. Analyses and understandings that are not based on reason and evidence and the methods of science have no credibility with me, and religious belief is at the top of the list of things I reject as irrational, unfounded, and undemonstrable. 10,000 years of religious belief has made no contribution to the quality of our lives anywhere close to what science and technology have done for us. It wasn't very long ago, only a generation or two, that parents could routinely expect most of their children to die of infections before they were 10 years old. That hardly ever happens anymore, at least in what's called the developed world, and science is the reason why.
Irrationality doesn't go anywhere, it's just wrong. That's why I constantly challenge religious beliefs and religiously-based understandings of the way things are. They are fundamentally irrational, based on belief in the absence of evidence, and often in the face of the evidence, and that's not a good way to understand things or solve problems.
Quoting Curiosity
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can tell you why I do it, and why I constantly challenge religious belief and religious explanations of everything. In all of human history we have found only one method for reliably establishing the truth content of ideas, and that is the method of science. It's about logic and evidence: how does nature actually behave when probed? That experimental attitude is responsible for much of the quality of our lives, and it's only about 400 years old. The medical science that prolongs our lives, the technological gadgets like this computer that inform and entertain us, even something as mundane as the clean fresh water that comes out of our household taps and the sewage systems that safely carry away our wastes, are products of science. Science and the technologies it fosters have improved our lives immeasurably; they work, and they work consistently and reliably. A smallpox vaccination will protect you indefinitely against a horrible disease that once killed millions, and it works whether you believe in it or not. No religion can make a claim like that. For those who have definite opinions - religious or otherwise - why is it we feel the need to prove it to others what we believe.
I am a committed and unapologetic admirer of science and technology. It is demonstrably the best way we've ever found for understanding the world we live in, and in my view, if you reject its precepts, you are simply wrong. Analyses and understandings that are not based on reason and evidence and the methods of science have no credibility with me, and religious belief is at the top of the list of things I reject as irrational, unfounded, and undemonstrable. 10,000 years of religious belief has made no contribution to the quality of our lives anywhere close to what science and technology have done for us. It wasn't very long ago, only a generation or two, that parents could routinely expect most of their children to die of infections before they were 10 years old. That hardly ever happens anymore, at least in what's called the developed world, and science is the reason why.
Irrationality doesn't go anywhere, it's just wrong. That's why I constantly challenge religious beliefs and religiously-based understandings of the way things are. They are fundamentally irrational, based on belief in the absence of evidence, and often in the face of the evidence, and that's not a good way to understand things or solve problems.
House Member
Posts: 3,523
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 19th, 2007, 01:00 AM
Quoting look3467
I don't believe that either. If god's really running it all, he'd be responsible for you getting cancer in the first place. You might want to ask him why he let that happen to you before you ask him to fix it.
If I was detected to have cancer, Yes, I would pray. If, my God is willing to heal me, directly or with whatever resources are available to mankind, then so be it. But if not, then I will still hold my faith as if I had never gotten Cancer.
Council Member
Posts: 1,923
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
August 19th, 2007, 02:01 AM
There would be absolutely no growth, no demonstration of love, or forgiveness, no buildings to build, no kingdoms to rule, no diseases to catch, and no death.
We wouldn't need to propagate for sex would be hum drum, no excitement, no thrill, no attraction.
These are just a few of the things that would be lacking in a perfect world.
If than, that were so, what possible good would we be? Everything is perfect, what would there be for us to add?
Now, lets say it is not a perfect world and all those things apply, now we have an opportunity to grow, improve, learn, build better things and always striving forward for ourselves and for all of humanity.
To understand it as I do, requires faith in a God who tells us all this things and in which we in the midst of striving, suffering, we are ever learning to deal with them, overcome many of them and actually become of some worth to ourselves and to mankind.
I don't have any difficulty with any of the sciences, discoveries and how this world can be hell for some and heaven for others.
I can understand why some folks can not see to see God as God.
Growth is to sciences what growth is to knowledge of God.
Both work hand in hand, science for the flesh, and God for our spirits.
To show that even today understanding can be found in the bible:
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Science is of the world, to be used by the world as a tool to better one self and others.
In that aspect, you are absolutely correct.
But science does not hold all the answers until the one to whom all is credited to, releases bit by bit, information as the striving of mankind enfolds.
Striving is a catalyst for growth, and is needed as a contrast.
A child born is perfect in innocence, but as it grows, in knowledge and strength of spirit, must endure striving.
So, you question as to why God allows sufferings, well, if my answer does not give some satisfaction, then nothing of God will.
And all I can say, is the very best to you, and that you would prosper as far as your belief will take you, for truly, I would not wish anything bad come your way, even if you don't believe in God.
Friends, AJ
Quoting Dexter Sinister
In a perfect world:
I don't believe that either. If god's really running it all, he'd be responsible for you getting cancer in the first place. You might want to ask him why he let that happen to you before you ask him to fix it.
There would be absolutely no growth, no demonstration of love, or forgiveness, no buildings to build, no kingdoms to rule, no diseases to catch, and no death.
We wouldn't need to propagate for sex would be hum drum, no excitement, no thrill, no attraction.
These are just a few of the things that would be lacking in a perfect world.
If than, that were so, what possible good would we be? Everything is perfect, what would there be for us to add?
Now, lets say it is not a perfect world and all those things apply, now we have an opportunity to grow, improve, learn, build better things and always striving forward for ourselves and for all of humanity.
To understand it as I do, requires faith in a God who tells us all this things and in which we in the midst of striving, suffering, we are ever learning to deal with them, overcome many of them and actually become of some worth to ourselves and to mankind.
I don't have any difficulty with any of the sciences, discoveries and how this world can be hell for some and heaven for others.
I can understand why some folks can not see to see God as God.
Growth is to sciences what growth is to knowledge of God.
Both work hand in hand, science for the flesh, and God for our spirits.
To show that even today understanding can be found in the bible:
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Science is of the world, to be used by the world as a tool to better one self and others.
In that aspect, you are absolutely correct.
But science does not hold all the answers until the one to whom all is credited to, releases bit by bit, information as the striving of mankind enfolds.
Striving is a catalyst for growth, and is needed as a contrast.
A child born is perfect in innocence, but as it grows, in knowledge and strength of spirit, must endure striving.
So, you question as to why God allows sufferings, well, if my answer does not give some satisfaction, then nothing of God will.
And all I can say, is the very best to you, and that you would prosper as far as your belief will take you, for truly, I would not wish anything bad come your way, even if you don't believe in God.
Friends, AJ
Theism Exorcist
Posts: 368
Location: The Capitol
Location: The Capitol
August 19th, 2007, 05:07 PM
Quoting lone wolf
Math is the answer . To everything . Everything has a mathematical link and everything is mathematically quantifiable . It's just for some things we haven't figured the math out yet . Mathematics is logical , sensible and most of all provable it's the ultimate tool for analyzing our universe .
Gee ... think by the numbers? I prefer to seek my own answers.
Wolf
Wolf
Council Member
Posts: 1,923
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
August 19th, 2007, 09:46 PM
7 is divided by 2 = 3.5 =equal the two witness, one for the first half of 7 and the second for the second half of 7.
Each day of 7 is divided by one, yet equal to 24 hours or one day.
No, if one could, I say could, calculate a day (24hr period)taken out of time, that day would split time between two distinct worlds of time. The former from the latter.
That day has been taken out of time, not to ever be numbered amongst the days, the weeks or the years.
That day, is the day commencing at 6pm Friday evening and ending at 6pm Saturday evening.
That is the day Jesus became God delivering the world from its eternal death sentence.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Minority Observer84
The bible is structured on numbers and is also mathematically workable?
Math is the answer . To everything . Everything has a mathematical link and everything is mathematically quantifiable . It's just for some things we haven't figured the math out yet . Mathematics is logical , sensible and most of all provable it's the ultimate tool for analyzing our universe .
7 is divided by 2 = 3.5 =equal the two witness, one for the first half of 7 and the second for the second half of 7.
Each day of 7 is divided by one, yet equal to 24 hours or one day.
No, if one could, I say could, calculate a day (24hr period)taken out of time, that day would split time between two distinct worlds of time. The former from the latter.
That day has been taken out of time, not to ever be numbered amongst the days, the weeks or the years.
That day, is the day commencing at 6pm Friday evening and ending at 6pm Saturday evening.
That is the day Jesus became God delivering the world from its eternal death sentence.
Peace>>>AJ
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,867
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
August 19th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Pretty tough to deny the effects of a positive mind set in the face of life shattering illness.
Pretty tough to deny the effects of a positive mind set in the face of life shattering illness.
Council Member
Posts: 1,923
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
August 19th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Unforgiven
It is without a spiritual source of strength to joust or boast the weakness of the flesh.
Pretty tough to deny the effects of a positive mind set in the face of life shattering illness.
Peace>>>AJ
House Member
Posts: 3,523
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 19th, 2007, 11:39 PM
But I don't believe Hell exists either.
Quoting look3467
That's a very strange definition of a perfect world. No growth? No demonstration of love or forgiveness? Nothing to build? Nothing to do? You're equating perfection with stasis, nothing ever changes. That's not a perfect world and human nature would never accept it as such, it's a deadly boring world. Sounds more like Hell to me.
In a perfect world:
There would be absolutely no growth, no demonstration of love, or forgiveness, no buildings to build, no kingdoms to rule, no diseases to catch, and no death.
There would be absolutely no growth, no demonstration of love, or forgiveness, no buildings to build, no kingdoms to rule, no diseases to catch, and no death.
But I don't believe Hell exists either.
House Member
Posts: 3,523
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 19th, 2007, 11:43 PM
Quoting look3467
3.5 equals two? Seven divided by one is 24? C'mon AJ, what kind of numerological nonsense is that?
The bible is structured on numbers and is also mathematically workable?
7 is divided by 2 = 3.5 =equal the two witness, one for the first half of 7 and the second for the second half of 7.
Each day of 7 is divided by one, yet equal to 24 hours or one day.
7 is divided by 2 = 3.5 =equal the two witness, one for the first half of 7 and the second for the second half of 7.
Each day of 7 is divided by one, yet equal to 24 hours or one day.
House Member
Posts: 3,523
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 19th, 2007, 11:59 PM
Quoting Unforgiven
Maybe so, but there's no evidence it'll affect the outcome, it'll just make the sufferer's decline and ultimate death less unpleasant. You can try to be upbeat about it, set your affairs in order, tell everybody you love that you love them, and recognize that death is something we all face sooner or later and accept it when your time comes, or you can sink into depression and anger and make your life and the lives of those who love you a misery. I've seen both patterns more times than I care to remember. My mother did the former, my father did the latter. But either way, we're all going to die, and then we'll find out what this discussion's really about. Or if it's about anything at all.
Pretty tough to deny the effects of a positive mind set in the face of life shattering illness.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
August 20th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Interesting contribution Dex.
Directed effort in the attempt to shape the material, the physical/corporeal substance of the life dynamic to achieve a desired or “better” condition or experience can only proceed from apprehension and understanding of the nature of that substance.
Effort directed by availability to questioning the nature of existential qualia…guided by imagination, speculation and ontological inquiry resting upon a foundation of integrated and synthesized knowledge and experience.
As far as manipulation of structures and the utilization of ‘natural’ forces…(i.e. occurring as agent of change in and of the material universe and inhering in the interrelationship that exists between all matter), “progress” has always been and will always be product of inquiry and tested hypotheses…producing repeatable and hence predictable outcomes…
We can of course reduce everything encountered as part of our apprehension of the nature of material/substantive existence to its basic non-reducible elements….
I can’t argue that “religion” has served mankind to this end to any significant degree approaching that of the scientific method.
It may well turn out that the reason why you like Handel’s Messiah or Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” more than say Hector Berlioz’s music or paintings by Pieter Bruegel or Heironymus Bosch is simply because elements within those compositions please you on some level dictated by dopamine or serotonin levels, but would you entertain the notion that some characteristic or quality inhering to these compositions pleases you because of interrelationships which may exist that aren’t qualified or quantifiable by any metric available to the scientific method?
If it’s fair and reasonable to entertain the idea that “substance” like oh say “dark matter” or the Tau particle (questions that plague even the malleable constructs of scientific hypotheses like string theory etc)…may arise from some source or epiphenomenon unrelated to that part of our understanding of the nature of existence that we use to satisfy our interests by, through application of current “understanding” of the “nature” of our universe?
If for example we all as sentient beings intuit/feel/apprehend “love” as the same thing, that could of course mean that the particular components and “stuff” that contribute to the perception of an emotion called “love”, the quantum flux of potentials swirling around in an otherwise chaotic ballet of intangible and all but ethereal background hiss of electromagnetic radiation, how might one construct an argument for both the universality of this “emotion” and what biological or evolutionary “advantage” accrues to beings vulnerable to its detection?
I wouldn’t suggest that a god or supra-phenomenal entity is the well-spring of these kinds of forces or experiences, but one must ask why something like “love” or “beauty” have the influence they have to direct human behavior.
Certainly it’s fair and reasonable to suggest that the very insubstantiality of these phenomena leave them and in fact render them suitable as tools or devices used to manipulate human emotional states that result in unsavory practices like animal and human sacrifice, Jihads and Inquisitions, but will the understanding of what these conditions actually are simpify or complicate our self-inquiry?
Would you say that there is a possibility in all the universe or in the meta-universe for that matter that explanations may exist, that are simply beyond the means provided by “science” as we currently understand this idea, and that while our science may permit mathematical or theoretical models that satisfy our limited abilities in this variation on existence, that something may exist that eludes our understanding? (outside the scientific paradigm)
In the greater practicality of anti-static laundry additives and genetically modified pseudo-cheese delivered in long-polymer plastic tubes, human energy devoted to pleasing our appetites and desires will inevitably garner far greater popularity than will understanding the substantive genesis of empathy compassion and love, but is humankind the greater for his facility at manipulating substance?
We’ve surrendered our art and creativity to the dollar and our emotions and intellect are subjugated by adopted symbolisms like patriotism and loyalty to ideologies…
Will building a better mouse trap prepare mankind for what exists beyond human understanding? Is that important?
Will increasing the chasm between our understanding of substantive reality and human sentience on one hand while minimalizing those intangible and ellusive properties/energies and dynamics characterized roughly as “spirituality” on the other, serve humankind’s sojourn through the cosmos more adequately than acknowledging that we simply don’t and perhaps can’t “know” everything?
Will understanding how a thought becomes a dream broaden the human canvas or shrink it?
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Dexter
You're misrepresenting atheism a little, I think. There are a few who'll categorically state that they believe there is no god, but the more common position, and my own, is that they do not believe there is one. It's a lack of belief in god's presence, not a positive belief in his absence. Personally, I think the agnostic position on this issue is usually pretty lame. Agnosticism on some issues is perfectly legitimate, such as in cases where we know there is a definitive answer to a question but we don't know what it is yet. Extraterrestrial life is a good example: either it does or doesn't exist, we don't know which yet but the question is ultimately answerable, at least in principle, so the agnostic position works for that one. That's what Richard Dawkins calls, with approval, Temporary Agnosticism in Practice. He also identifies what he calls Permanent Agnosticism in Principle, for questions that can never be answered no matter how much evidence we have because the idea of evidence isn't applicable to them. That's the usual position of religious agnostics. Dawkins argues, as would I, that the question of god's existence belongs in the Temporary Agnosticism in Practice category. Either god exists or he doesn't, and it's a legitimate scientific question because a universe with a god in it ought to be detectably different from one without. We don't yet have the evidence to provide a definitive answer, but the question ought to be answerable, and in the meantime we can use the evidence we have to shade the probabilities, which come down pretty clearly against god's existence at the moment. It's possible we don't properly understand the evidence we do have and have thus shaded the probabilities all wrongly, so in that sense you're right that atheism is as arrogant as fundamentalism, if by that you mean atheism in the sense of a positive belief in god's absence, not a lack of belief in his presence.
Bit of a digression, but nobody who knows me will be surprised by it. What would it take to make a believer out of me? A single, well-attested, incontrovertible miracle, an event that admits of no other possible explanation but divine intervention in the normal order of things. It would have to be something pretty dramatic, like a big finger appearing in the sky pointing at me, witnessed by thousands of sober and reliable people, who also hear a booming voice intoning "You're wro o o o n n n n g g g!" I know that sounds flippant, but that's the scale of event it would take. Another example: a nearby supernova whose radiation would destroy all life on earth, but Jupiter moves into position and stays there, in defiance of everything we understand about orbital mechanics, to shade the earth from it.
In the last year of her life I made a deal with my mother. She was a deeply committed Christian believer and knew she didn't have much time left on this earth (she was 84 and visibly failing) and she agreed that after her death she would show me the correctness of her view of things by manifesting herself to me in a way that could not possibly be misinterpreted or explained any other way but as a miraculous suspension of the rules of nature as I understand them. She was absolutely certain she could do it, I was equally certain she could not, she knew it and also knew she'd have to punch through my deep skepticism and all my understanding of how easy it is to fool yourself into believing things you want to believe that aren't actually true. She died 16 January 2005. She has not reappeared in any manner, not even as something I could explain away as a grief-induced hallucination. There's been nothing. That doesn't definitively mean she was wrong, or that I was right, but it does shade the probabilities in my favour.
Bit of a digression, but nobody who knows me will be surprised by it. What would it take to make a believer out of me? A single, well-attested, incontrovertible miracle, an event that admits of no other possible explanation but divine intervention in the normal order of things. It would have to be something pretty dramatic, like a big finger appearing in the sky pointing at me, witnessed by thousands of sober and reliable people, who also hear a booming voice intoning "You're wro o o o n n n n g g g!" I know that sounds flippant, but that's the scale of event it would take. Another example: a nearby supernova whose radiation would destroy all life on earth, but Jupiter moves into position and stays there, in defiance of everything we understand about orbital mechanics, to shade the earth from it.
In the last year of her life I made a deal with my mother. She was a deeply committed Christian believer and knew she didn't have much time left on this earth (she was 84 and visibly failing) and she agreed that after her death she would show me the correctness of her view of things by manifesting herself to me in a way that could not possibly be misinterpreted or explained any other way but as a miraculous suspension of the rules of nature as I understand them. She was absolutely certain she could do it, I was equally certain she could not, she knew it and also knew she'd have to punch through my deep skepticism and all my understanding of how easy it is to fool yourself into believing things you want to believe that aren't actually true. She died 16 January 2005. She has not reappeared in any manner, not even as something I could explain away as a grief-induced hallucination. There's been nothing. That doesn't definitively mean she was wrong, or that I was right, but it does shade the probabilities in my favour.
Interesting contribution Dex.
Directed effort in the attempt to shape the material, the physical/corporeal substance of the life dynamic to achieve a desired or “better” condition or experience can only proceed from apprehension and understanding of the nature of that substance.
Effort directed by availability to questioning the nature of existential qualia…guided by imagination, speculation and ontological inquiry resting upon a foundation of integrated and synthesized knowledge and experience.
As far as manipulation of structures and the utilization of ‘natural’ forces…(i.e. occurring as agent of change in and of the material universe and inhering in the interrelationship that exists between all matter), “progress” has always been and will always be product of inquiry and tested hypotheses…producing repeatable and hence predictable outcomes…
We can of course reduce everything encountered as part of our apprehension of the nature of material/substantive existence to its basic non-reducible elements….
I can’t argue that “religion” has served mankind to this end to any significant degree approaching that of the scientific method.
It may well turn out that the reason why you like Handel’s Messiah or Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” more than say Hector Berlioz’s music or paintings by Pieter Bruegel or Heironymus Bosch is simply because elements within those compositions please you on some level dictated by dopamine or serotonin levels, but would you entertain the notion that some characteristic or quality inhering to these compositions pleases you because of interrelationships which may exist that aren’t qualified or quantifiable by any metric available to the scientific method?
If it’s fair and reasonable to entertain the idea that “substance” like oh say “dark matter” or the Tau particle (questions that plague even the malleable constructs of scientific hypotheses like string theory etc)…may arise from some source or epiphenomenon unrelated to that part of our understanding of the nature of existence that we use to satisfy our interests by, through application of current “understanding” of the “nature” of our universe?
If for example we all as sentient beings intuit/feel/apprehend “love” as the same thing, that could of course mean that the particular components and “stuff” that contribute to the perception of an emotion called “love”, the quantum flux of potentials swirling around in an otherwise chaotic ballet of intangible and all but ethereal background hiss of electromagnetic radiation, how might one construct an argument for both the universality of this “emotion” and what biological or evolutionary “advantage” accrues to beings vulnerable to its detection?
I wouldn’t suggest that a god or supra-phenomenal entity is the well-spring of these kinds of forces or experiences, but one must ask why something like “love” or “beauty” have the influence they have to direct human behavior.
Certainly it’s fair and reasonable to suggest that the very insubstantiality of these phenomena leave them and in fact render them suitable as tools or devices used to manipulate human emotional states that result in unsavory practices like animal and human sacrifice, Jihads and Inquisitions, but will the understanding of what these conditions actually are simpify or complicate our self-inquiry?
Would you say that there is a possibility in all the universe or in the meta-universe for that matter that explanations may exist, that are simply beyond the means provided by “science” as we currently understand this idea, and that while our science may permit mathematical or theoretical models that satisfy our limited abilities in this variation on existence, that something may exist that eludes our understanding? (outside the scientific paradigm)
In the greater practicality of anti-static laundry additives and genetically modified pseudo-cheese delivered in long-polymer plastic tubes, human energy devoted to pleasing our appetites and desires will inevitably garner far greater popularity than will understanding the substantive genesis of empathy compassion and love, but is humankind the greater for his facility at manipulating substance?
We’ve surrendered our art and creativity to the dollar and our emotions and intellect are subjugated by adopted symbolisms like patriotism and loyalty to ideologies…
Will building a better mouse trap prepare mankind for what exists beyond human understanding? Is that important?
Will increasing the chasm between our understanding of substantive reality and human sentience on one hand while minimalizing those intangible and ellusive properties/energies and dynamics characterized roughly as “spirituality” on the other, serve humankind’s sojourn through the cosmos more adequately than acknowledging that we simply don’t and perhaps can’t “know” everything?
Will understanding how a thought becomes a dream broaden the human canvas or shrink it?
