Alternate/Parallel Universes

[Keiko]

Some issues are just not directly addressed in the Bible because the ideas were too advanced for the people to understand.

However, I recall that Jesus would say, "The Kingdom is at hand." Perhaps he was making reference to a plane which resonates on a much higher level than ours, the place in which God's Kingdom resides.

And on the other side of the coin, it's possible that hell is on a lower plane of existence.

This would mean that becoming a Godly, loving person IS absolutely necessary to make one's way into heaven because you would need that good, loving energy in your soul in order to pass through to this other plane of existence once you are no longer physically tied to this world.

I personally feel like the deeper you get into science, the more it reaffirms religion, because of the intricate, complicated ways every thing relates to one another.

For a little background on M theory/String theory(which suggests the existence of other realities) that's put in terms normal people understand, you can go here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

 

[The Nihilist]

Keiko, if you're not careful, all of your friends are going to call you a Platonist and make fun of you. Seriously, though, string theory only reinforces religion if you make it. That's like saying that the clouds form faces because it is their nature. The only faces in the clouds are those we think we see. It is the same with what you have said.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[fuzzyh]

I think science does point to somethings related to God, however it does not become a knock down drag out argument that will win a debate. I'm thinking about things like information theory and the intelligent design debate as well as certain things related to physics. However, we come to those with a worldview typically that is already pro God. If we were to come with the idea that God does not exist, I think our conclusions would be very different.

Keiko, why do you get to those upper planes and come back and tell us all about them.

 

[Gentle]

Or it's right here in front of us in this realm but we are not capable of percieving it. just another though
peace, God bless

 

[Keiko]

I doubt science will ever prove anything about God one way or another (I personally think it's that way for good reason)

Gentle--that's what my dad thinks about it. I think it's definitely possible.

 

[The Nihilist]

I doubt science will ever prove anything about God one way or another

Unless you consider cognitive science, I suppose

 

[Blackguard_]

unless you consider cognitive science, I suppose

nope. You'd have to prove God doesn't exist before you can prove he's only a hallucination or other mind trick. you can't just go "the brain is wired to beleive in God, therefore God doesn't exist".

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, then you have to prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, smart guy.
Seriously, though, if cognitive science can explain the mechanisms that make us believe in God, then that is a sufficient explanation for why we have those beliefs.

 

[fuzzyh]

Problem with that is that if science can show that there the reason for certain beliefs, does nothing to demonstrate that those beliefs are true or false. You see, Cognitive scientists think that their beliefs are true. However, their beliefs are by their own view simply a state in the brain. As much as some scientist love to think that Cognitive science will solve the God problem. It simply becomes a sticky mess for themselves.

You might consider
http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html by Alvin Plantinga

http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article5.html by John Hick

 

[The Nihilist]

Problem with that is that if science can show that there the reason for certain beliefs, does nothing to demonstrate that those beliefs are true or false. You see, Cognitive scientists think that their beliefs are true. However, their beliefs are by their own view simply a state in the brain. As much as some scientist love to think that Cognitive science will solve the God problem. It simply becomes a sticky mess for themselves.

Not a bad argument, but I disagree. Cognitive science, and I'm thinking of Andrew Newberg specifically, says that our belief in God stems from the interaction of several different programming structures in the brain working together in a way that is not obvious. Basically, Newberg describes religious belief in a way that makes it look completely illegitimate as a way of accessing what is true. It would be like laying in bed, dreaming about things around you, and then using those dreams to direct yourself around the world. If you take Newberg seriously, it no longer makes sense to talk about whether or not religious beliefs are true. Additionally, this isn't sufficient to make an argument for your Cartesian skeptic criticism.

 

[Keiko]

I hate to bring this up, but...isn't cognitive science considered a "soft" science? I mean how do you go about proving that scientifically?

I've taken several psych classes and never even heard of it...so is it just not accepted or proven yet? Has the research been published in any peer-reviewed science journals? If so, I wanna read about it. I'm kinda interested.

I love science and all, but frankly I don't give research any credit unless it's been peer-reviewed. Otherwise I just consider it "pop science."

 

[Blackguard_]

nevermind

 

[The Nihilist]

I hate to bring this up, but...isn't cognitive science considered a "soft" science? I mean how do you go about proving that scientifically?

I've taken several psych classes and never even heard of it...so is it just not accepted or proven yet? Has the research been published in any peer-reviewed science journals? If so, I wanna read about it. I'm kinda interested.

I love science and all, but frankly I don't give research any credit unless it's been peer-reviewed. Otherwise I just consider it "pop science."

Oh God, it is not at all soft science. Here's the quick answer:

Cognitive science is usually defined as the scientific study either of mind or of intelligence (e.g. Luger 1994). Practically every formal introduction to cognitive science stresses that it is a highly interdisciplinary research area in which psychology, education, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, anthropology, and biology are its principal specialized or applied branches. Therefore we may distinguish cognitive studies of either human or animal brains, mind and intelligence.

I am not myself a cognitive scientist, and frankly, I don't know that much about it as a discipline. What I do know is that it's not intelligent design, which I think is your question. Newberg, whom I cited earlier, is closer to a neuroscientist than he is to a lot of these other disciplines.

 

[Tormac]

Hi Keiko,

The notion of other universes is a fascinating topic of conjecture, but of course that is all it is at this time. It is still closer to science fiction than accepted scientific theory.

I do agree with fuzzyh, coming from a different perspective of course, that concluding that string theory holds evidence for a particular religion, or theism in general is a conclusion that you brought with you to the subject, and not something in the subject itself. It is just as easy to claim that the Bifrost Bridge is a metaphor for traveling to the alternate universe of Valhalla, where the true Gods reside.

There may be something to string theory, but at this point it is just as likely that there is not really anything to it. It is also likely that humans may never be able to say anything intelligent about alternate universes, even if science decides that they are likely to be.

I personally prefer Robert Heinlein’s cosmology that he presented in his short story “The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag”, for its literary value, if not for its explanatory power about alternate universes.

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

Some issues are just not directly addressed in the Bible because the ideas were too advanced for the people to understand.

However, I recall that Jesus would say, "The Kingdom is at hand." Perhaps he was making reference to a plane which resonates on a much higher level than ours, the place in which God's Kingdom resides.

And on the other side of the coin, it's possible that hell is on a lower plane of existence.

This would mean that becoming a Godly, loving person IS absolutely necessary to make one's way into heaven because you would need that good, loving energy in your soul in order to pass through to this other plane of existence once you are no longer physically tied to this world.

I personally feel like the deeper you get into science, the more it reaffirms religion, because of the intricate, complicated ways every thing relates to one another.

For a little background on M theory/String theory(which suggests the existence of other realities) that's put in terms normal people understand, you can go here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

The nature of dimension is far different when it comes to plains of existance. M-Theory sort of suggests different dimensions, and a "multiverse" which may hold various membranes, or planes of existance. It is impossible to define "higher" and "lower" plains of existance because those words mean little in a place where time is not linear, and spacial dimensions are no longer spacial.

 

[fuzzyh]

RecoveringPhilosopher,

It sounds as if you are adding complexity to the response, but I still think it deals with a different mode of thinking. That said, I haven't read Andrew Newberg, so I can't say exactly what is going on in his writings.

My questions about Newberg would be first is his talking about Religious Experience. That would be similar to that which Dawkin's writes about, though I've never read it, just what he talked about. Those ideas would be areas in the brain that are concerned with the visions, dreams, etc. If that is the case this does nothing to refute God, but only deals with religious experience, which I do not give a lot of credence to. However, if you can say that Newberg's ideas here talk about the proposition of God's existence is found there then we are back to a world of propositions. Thus all propositions are based upon certain functions in the brain, which gives little credence to them being true or false.

Of course, all that said I've never read Newberg. When I get the chance, I'll see if I can't use some of his writings relating it to my schooling, so I can do some research on it. Can you clue me in where to start?

 

[The Nihilist]

Newberg's position is that we posit immaterial beings, like gods or spirits or that kind of thing, as a result of certain structures within our brain. He does not talk about religious experience, at least not in the book I was reading. In I think it was Discover magazaine, he was involved with neurological testing on people involved in religious experience, and that, too was telling, but that's neither here nor there.
I disagree with what you say, though, about propositions being mere functions of the brain. A lot of what we think is happening is directly experiential. Or, more specifically, we hold proposition X because of external cause Y. These give us real information about the world around us. Newberg's position, though, is that we hold the proposition that God exists because of an internal cause, that being our brain structure. Clearly, this would not give us knowledge about the world around us.
Let me know what you think about this.
The piece I read was from his book called "Why God Won't Go Away."

 

[fuzzyh]

There may be some problems with holding proposition X because of external cause Y. Although, I do think that would demonstrate a certain amount of causality. However, if that is true, wouldn't Newberg's position be held because of an external cause. I think one would be hard pressed to prove that causes can provide knowledge. Again, neither here nor there.

If I get a chance, I'll see if I can run this by someone who specializes in Philosophy of Science, especially if it's reasonable short read (under 100 or so pages).

Thanks for help keeping me honest, that's what philosophers are good at.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not really sure how to answer that, as epistemology was never my focus of study. If I grant what you say, though, then aren't I trapped in this sort of Cartesian skeptic's position?

 

[fuzzyh]

You may very well be.

Actually, I did get the chance to read some of Newbergs writings today, mostly his paper on forgiveness, but I did skim over a couple of other papers. He is studying some very cutting edge and interesting stuff. However, one thing that I noticed is that he often uses the term correlative at least in his writing on forgiveness. Could it be that belief in God could be correlative?

You ought to look into some epistemology. I've struggled with epistemology often. I listened to the cognitive science class mp3s from MIT's OpenCourseWare. I learned a ton, but most cognitive scientists don't have a clue about the philosophical epistemology Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas. I read a lot of them with some type of derivative of Kant's thinking. Most, it seems, only know very little about the problems with the theories they seem to hold. But neither here, nor there

When I get a chance to look the rest of Newberg's papers, I'll try to post here and put down my thoughts on a new thread.