Are science and religion converging?

Dux wrote:

You keep guessing a god can be everything, even things that we can't imagine, it's a concept & you're still using parts of it. It's lateral thinking, it's imagination, it's simply absurd.

You just evading the fact that alll gods are man-made.

The concept of god is as commercial as it is junk food, & as wide as teh universe, since it has qualities that are not logical, they are products of the imaginations of many people, & all combined it's a pretty messed up concept. Until you decide to leave the concept out then you'll understand the logic of the lack of existence of a god.

Terry, I don't demand a god to be perfect, I know it doesn't exist, perfect or not perfect, the whole concept is as complex as the brain, but as false as unicorns.

Dux

Your logic is faulty and amateurish.

If you want to "believe" there are no gods -- and that it is not even possible for gods to exist -- do so. If you want to "believe" you know some of the stuff you are alleging you know -- but which seem beyond your ability to know -- do so.

You are free to believe elephants can pole vault if you want to.

Like your theistic counterparts, Dux -- you just will not listen to reason.

All anyone with a brain can do is to call your logical inconsistencies to your attention -- and then get a laugh or two out of your denial.

0 Replies

I agree with the laugh part.

0 Replies

truth
I am not receiving updates from A2K so I'm having to enter threads too late to be an actual part of the streams of discourse. But I have admired much from people like Terry, Fresco, PortalStar and, particularly Rosborne. I enjoyed the caveat regarding the fusion of ambiguous science with eastern mysticism. Much mischief has been committed in this vein. But while modern physics is awe inspiring and asian mysticism has provided wonderful avenues for liberation from existential misery. these are not to be diminished by exposure of the mischief makers. I wonder sometimes if religion, like poetry and art in general express capacities and needs of the neural system not met by science and logic, even "reason". This may have something to do with the two hemisphere discoveries of the structural-function division of the right and left sides of the human brain. Can't say for certain yet. I also think that Dux may have a point which we may be too quick to dismiss because of his youthful aggressiveness. His thesis is, if I am correct, that if we eliminate all conceptions of God as seen in the world, we will be left with no "God". Frank, from his rather rigid agnosticism, chastises him for choosing to believe in no-God. But Dux seems to be saying something quite different, namely that if we eliminate not only the conceptions of the many Gods found in the anthropological history but the very notion of God as well, we will not see--whereever we look--any indications of "God." Do I miss your point, Dux?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I also think that Dux may have a point which we may be too quick to dismiss because of his youthful aggressiveness. His thesis is, if I am correct, that if we eliminate all conceptions of God as seen in the world, we will be left with no "God".

And would you also say that if we eliminate all conceptions of aliens on other planets -- there would be no aliens on other planets???

Quote:

Frank, from his rather rigid agnosticism, chastises him for choosing to believe in no-God.

I have never chastized Dux for anything he believes. He can, as I told him, believe that elephants can pole vault.

My argument with Dux has to do with his telling us that there are no gods.-- something I suspect he is not equipped to do.

Quote:

But Dux seems to be saying something quite different, namely that if we eliminate not only the conceptions of the many Gods found in the anthropological history but the very notion of God as well, we will not see--whereever we look--any indications of "God." Do I miss your point, Dux?

I don't think you miss Dux's point, JL, but 'll let him speak for himself on that. But if you have not missed his point -- so what?

How on Earth can you think it is reasonable to suggest that we eliminate all concepts of "a" to show that "a" does not exist?

0 Replies

Frank, old boy, I think you "are" missing the point on this one. If all concepts of gods created by humans did not exist, we "are" in fact left with no god. If human anthropology did not create any concept of gods, would man have created something else in its place? If not gods, what? c.i.

0 Replies

JLN

IMO The Dux point is not viable because WE cannot eliminate the "God" concept anymore than we can eliminate the "Unicorn" concept, or the "Aliens" concept. We are are stuck with them because of their enduring "social functionality" whether our personal belief relationship to them is positive or negative. My extropalation of semantics as "social functionality" questions the status of the word "existence" itself, and frees me to transcend the limits of assuming an "objective reality" and its associated reliance on "evidence".

For me Dux is stating a tautology, "that of which WE cannot conceive cannot be observed". This is the corollary to "that which cannot be observed by US cannot be conceived" which of course is invalid.

The reason I have used capitals above is to stress that conceptualization and (consequently "existence") is a function of particular observers defined by their cultural zeitgeist. E.g. Alchemists of old conceived of "the four elements" and observed accordingly. As an aside it is interesting that the "number" of colours in the rainbow has varied in history. Our current Newtonian "seven" was probably contrived to mirror the diatonic scale in music and consequently required the invention of the name "indigo".

0 Replies

fresco, Ever hear of a hypothetical question? c.i.

0 Replies

c.i.

Sure! All questions (and observations) are guided by a working hypothesis !

But some are pseudo questions. e.g. "Does the universe increase its "size" over time ?" WE will never know because the ruler would also alter. I'm saying that Dux's question is another such example.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, old boy, I think you "are" missing the point on this one. If all concepts of gods created by humans did not exist, we "are" in fact left with no god. If human anthropology did not create any concept of gods, would man have created something else in its place? If not gods, what? c.i.

ci, I honestly think you are missing the point.
If you eliminate all concepts of anything -- you are left with none of that thing.

You are doing the same thing Dux is doing -- you are assuming that men created all gods. Neither you or Dux has presented any evidence to back that up.

How do you know there is no God -- and that the God has not contacted humans?

How do you know there is no God -- and that the God has no desire or inclination to contact humans?

0 Replies

Here is a concept of God:

Some kind of originally existing being or condition -- with absolutely no personal aspects at all. No desire to reveal self -- or communicate with humans or whales or tse tse flies.

Why should I simply discard that possibility just so that atheists can say -- see, if you discard that possibility, there are no gods?

0 Replies

0 Replies

You will not accept that possibility only because it makes atheists right? What am I missing? We are talking 'hypothetical,' or at least that's what I thought. c.i.

0 Replies

Be careful, CI, I've seen strong men get lost in that whirlpool!

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, you are right, of course, that we cannot put the idea of God back in the bottle (and, anthropologically, the notion is found universally because of its functional value for the stability of societies). I was, as C.I., noted, referring to the hypothetical question raised by Dux. If there were no concept of God, there would be no God. Frank's conception of a God that MIGHT exist--that we cannot know whether or not it does--is refuted by the sheer fact that the concept is Frank's creation. How can we consider the possible existence of something that we know to be our fiction?

0 Replies

I take exception to your statement that theism is universal.

0 Replies

truth
Setanta, I did not mean "theism"; I meant "religion" in its various forms (and let's not get into the definitional swamp of finding a universally acceptable definition of religion. Anthropology has not solved that problem--as with the notion of "culture"--they just ignore it). Religion is found in all SOCIETIES, but it is not found in all INDIVIDUALS. Does that help? I should add that religion is VIRTUALLY universal.

0 Replies

Well, i wouldn't accept the categoric statement that religion is found in all societies, either. The Dogon of the Sahel, and the 'Kung of the Kalahari are two examples of peoples who, when first encountered by Europeans had no notion of a god, and the Dogon were reported by French anthropologists to have laughed at the notion. I recall from many, many years ago, a similar report by Australian anthropologists working in Papua. I don't have any citations for you, because this is off the top of my head. I think it is a patently unwarranted assumption.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, i wouldn't accept the categoric statement that religion is found in all societies, either. The Dogon of the Sahel, and the 'Kung of the Kalahari are two examples of peoples who, when first encountered by Europeans had no notion of a god, and the Dogon were reported by French anthropologists to have laughed at the notion. I recall from many, many years ago, a similar report by Australian anthropologists working in Papua. I don't have any citations for you, because this is off the top of my head. I think it is a patently unwarranted assumption.

Is the historical account that these people had no concept of god when found by Europeans dependent on the Europeans telling of history? If so, that should add a wrinkle to the equation worth considering. I think all that some Euro-centric history "proves" is that the "discoverers" knew not what the **** they did (or "discovered"), so forgive me if everything you say (although your knowledge of history is prodigious) isn't taken as gospel.

0 Replies

You need to take a chill pill, that was way out in left field. I was referring to what i'd read by anthropologists more than 30 years ago when i was in university, and i referred to it as being "off the top of my head." Because we do not agree does not warrant an assumption authorizing you to make such an egregious statement about Europeans. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander, and ethnic origin does not automatically make one look on others with arrogant disdain, nor more than it makes one worthy of such an attitude.

I know you believe what i do not, and i try to respect that. Please have the courtesy to reciprocate.

0 Replies

Granted. But tomorrow, when cooler heads prevail, it will still be true that Eurocentric History has lied more often than has been generally discussed in the open.

0 Replies

Are science and religion converging?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know