Can science continue without a belief in God?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I actually rather like Chopra...... (but you probably guessed that already didn't you)?

It doesn't surprise me. Soundbite mysticism, deepities, sophistry, and pseudoscience, are superficially appealing, lack the substance to be intellectually challenging, and foster fantasies and wishful thinking. What's not to like? Chopra certainly makes a good living from it.

 

[Colter]

Is this an argument from incredulity? A first cause/prime mover argument?

Science is the search for truth in the material realm, religion is the search for truth in the spiritual realm. Both science and religion will always end up at First Cause.

 

[dms1972]

I was thinking that the basic principle would apply to both of these types of situations.

That might be too wide an application in light of Biblical examples after all did Paul compromise on the message of the Gospel because others disagreed and opposed him?. Also did believers like Athanasius, or Luther agree with those who opposed them? Should they have?

I think the whole "agree with thine adversary quickly" has to do with if we have wronged someone, and that person rightly has a case against us. It more about something like say one sold a car, and the buyer finds something wrong that should have been mentioned, we are to try and find a way to settle the matter with them before it gets to court.

 

[DennisTate]

It doesn't surprise me. Soundbite mysticism, deepities, sophistry, and pseudoscience, are superficially appealing, lack the substance to be intellectually challenging, and foster fantasies and wishful thinking. What's not to like? Chopra certainly makes a good living from it.

And some of this information gives people some cause for hope........
hope is a powerful emotional incentive for the human spirit to rise up.....


Mellen-Thomas Benedict's Near-Death Experience

I went over to the other side during my near-death experience with a lot of fears about toxic waste, nuclear missiles, the population explosion, the rainforest. I came back loving every single problem. I love nuclear waste. I love the mushroom cloud; this is the holiest mandala that we have manifested to date, as an archetype. It, more than any religion or philosophy on earth, brought us together all of a sudden, to a new level of consciousness. Knowing that maybe we can blow up the planet fifty times, or 500 times, we finally realize that maybe we are all here together now. For a period they had to keep setting off more bombs to get it in to us. Then we started saying, "we do not need this any more." Now we are actally in a safer world than we have ever been in, and it is going to get safer. So I came back from my near-death experience loving toxic waste, because it brought us together. These things are so big. As Peter Russell might say, these problems are now "soul size." Do we have soul size answers, YES!

The clearing of the rain forest will slow down, and in fifty years there will be more trees on the planet than in a long time. If you are into ecology, go for it; you are that part of the system that is becoming aware. Go for it with all your might, but do not be depressed. It is part of a larger thing. Earth is in the process of domesticating itself. It is never again going to be as wild a place as it once was. There will be great wild places, reserves where nature thrives. Gardening and reserves will be the thing in the future. Population increase is getting very close to the optimal range of energy to cause a shift in consciousness. That shift in consciousness will change politics, money, energy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And some of this information gives people some cause for hope........
hope is a powerful emotional incentive for the human spirit to rise up.....

True, 'Hope springs eternal in the human breast' as Alexander Pope said. I suppose the vague and contentless nature of Chopra-isms means they're unfalsifiable, which means the false hopes they engender are unlikely to be dashed.

Mellen-Thomas Benedict's Near-Death Experience

Yawn... other people's dreams are generally interesting only to them.

 

[Kylie]

Science is the search for truth in the material realm, religion is the search for truth in the spiritual realm. Both science and religion will always end up at First Cause.

I've not seen any evidence that there even IS a spiritual realm.

 

[Colter]

I've not seen any evidence that there even IS a spiritual realm.

We have. If you ever experience a spiritual awakening then you will understand.

 

[Kylie]

We have. If you ever experience a spiritual awakening then you will understand.

Yeah, your gut feelings don't count as evidence. All I've got is your say so, and I can't verify that your experience was accurate.

Besides, lots of people have had spiritual experiences, many of which contradict the experiences of other people. If the spiritual realm was an objective fact, then this wouldn't happen.

 

[Colter]

Yeah, your gut feelings don't count as evidence. All I've got is your say so, and I can't verify that your experience was accurate.

Besides, lots of people have had spiritual experiences, many of which contradict the experiences of other people. If the spiritual realm was an objective fact, then this wouldn't happen.

Its evidence enough for those who know God. You will need to find God on your own should you ever truly desire to know God.

 

[Kylie]

Its evidence enough for those who know God. You will need to find God on your own should you ever truly desire to know God.

In other words, if people want to believe in something, they'll accept any evidence which appears to support it, and they won't actually critically examine it to see if the evidence is valid.

You're not gonna get me to change my mind by saying I have to lower my standards of evidence first.

 

[Colter]

In other words, if people want to believe in something, they'll accept any evidence which appears to support it, and they won't actually critically examine it to see if the evidence is valid.

You're not gonna get me to change my mind by saying I have to lower my standards of evidence first.

No, your opinion is speculation and conjecture of the inner experience of others who are spirit born, it comes from ignorance having not experienced the presence of God for yourself. You have developed a concept of what it must be like, and project that onto others. In the spiritual life the "evidence" of knowing Gods presence comes after the birth of faith, not before. Besides, in life there are things we take on faith and trust without fully understanding them all the time.

 

[Kylie]

No, your opinion is speculation and conjecture of the inner experience of others who are spirit born, it comes from ignorance having not experienced the presence of God for yourself. You have developed a concept of what it must be like, and project that onto others. In the spiritual life the "evidence" of knowing Gods presence comes after the birth of faith, not before. Besides, in life there are things we take on faith and trust without fully understanding them all the time.

And what about the people who HAVE had this kind of experience, yet claim that you are wrong, and these experiences prove the existence of THEIR God, not yours? They are just as convinced as you are. Why is it that the experience is valid evidence if it supports your ideas, but invalid if it disagrees with them? Or are you holding a double standard?

 

[Colter]

And what about the people who HAVE had this kind of experience, yet claim that you are wrong, and these experiences prove the existence of THEIR God, not yours? They are just as convinced as you are. Why is it that the experience is valid evidence if it supports your ideas, but invalid if it disagrees with them? Or are you holding a double standard?

* I never said that the experience of another is invalid. That's something from your excuses for rejecting the search for God yourself-tool kit.

This quote will explain it better than I can, so rather than sit and rewrite it out in my words I will let you read an explanation for this phenomenon.


"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique—no two mortals being alike—it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.


When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric—circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this "sense," "feeling," "intuition," or "experience" which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal—the Adjuster is prepersonal—but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." Urantia Book 1955

 

[tas8831]

I am not sure whether believing scientists need to talk a lot about God, but how long can Science continue without some scientists believing in an Cosmic Intelligence behind it all? Can they continue to believe in an orderly universe if they believe everything is a product of chance?

Can arguments be valid if they are premised on strawman fallacies?

 

[tas8831]

Atheists simply do not search for a meaning.

Theists search for meaning where there is none, and confabulate it when necessary so as to conform to their presuppositions.

 

[tas8831]

Well if you believe its chance, and not intelligence behind the universe why would one suppose there are laws to discover?

I get it - some Christian guru told you that if not God, it must be just chance for the materialist atheist marxist.

And you are running with it.

 

[tas8831]

Of course they can, people have always believed in things that logically they can't support.

God, for example.

What is of far greater concern is that without a belief in God there is no basis for morality, no requirement for honesty in reporting results.

So say those ascribing to a belief that allows one to 'confess' their sins or pray for forgiveness (which, amazingly, always seems to be granted to conservatives) and go about their business.

This is already being commented on in science papers.

5 examples, please.

 

[Kylie]

* I never said that the experience of another is invalid. That's something from your excuses for rejecting the search for God yourself-tool kit.

This quote will explain it better than I can, so rather than sit and rewrite it out in my words I will let you read an explanation for this phenomenon.


"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique—no two mortals being alike—it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.


When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric—circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this "sense," "feeling," "intuition," or "experience" which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal—the Adjuster is prepersonal—but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." Urantia Book 1955

All well and good, but it ignores one simple fact.

If A and B are contradictory, then they can't BOTH be true. You can have A or you can have B, but you can't have both.

If you have evidence of A, then any evidence for B must be invalid.

But in the case of God, the evidence for both sides is exactly the same. So if you believe religious idea A and someone else believes religious idea B, then the evidence for religious idea A is evidence that religious idea B is wrong.

But if the evidence for religious idea B is wrong and that evidence is identical to the evidence for religious idea A, then we have just shown that the evidence for religious idea A is invalid, since by accepting it as evidence for religious idea A, we necessarily conclude that the evidence for religious idea B is wrong. And if that evidence is invalid when it comes to religious idea B, then it MUST be invalid when it comes to religious idea A.

All this talk of "no two people can interpret it the same," why, that just reeks of subjectivity. And that's no way to find out objective truth.

 

[Colter]

All well and good, but it ignores one simple fact.

If A and B are contradictory, then they can't BOTH be true. You can have A or you can have B, but you can't have both.

If you have evidence of A, then any evidence for B must be invalid.

But in the case of God, the evidence for both sides is exactly the same. So if you believe religious idea A and someone else believes religious idea B, then the evidence for religious idea A is evidence that religious idea B is wrong.

But if the evidence for religious idea B is wrong and that evidence is identical to the evidence for religious idea A, then we have just shown that the evidence for religious idea A is invalid, since by accepting it as evidence for religious idea A, we necessarily conclude that the evidence for religious idea B is wrong. And if that evidence is invalid when it comes to religious idea B, then it MUST be invalid when it comes to religious idea A.

All this talk of "no two people can interpret it the same," why, that just reeks of subjectivity. And that's no way to find out objective truth.

"Man's contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him."

Any "wrong evidence" would be in the erroneous formulation of beliefs as absolute fact. Faith remains a constant while interpretive beliefs change.

 

[Kylie]

"Man's contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him."

Any "wrong evidence" would be in the erroneous formulation of beliefs as absolute fact. Faith remains a constant while interpretive beliefs change.

So you just declare that God is objectively true in order to show he's objectively true? Where's the evidence? Oh, and if the evidence is something that is valid when you present it to support your beliefs, but is invalid when presented by others with different beliefs, then it's not really evidence.

And if something is objective fact, there are testable and repeated methods of detecting it. If the only way you can sense something is through a subjective experience, then newsflash, it ain't objective.