[MEGA] God v.2

[thujone]

Sure all gods ever prayed to since time immemorial exist. A god is nothing more than a human approximation (usually anthropomorphized) for the ultimate reality that binds and contains all being. This ultimate One is utterly without attributes, and thus not easy to put into words or images. How any given person grasps this ultimate reality and whittles it down to a manageable size, will depend on what life has handed him.

And I think if you read the surveys ebola? and I talk about, you'll eat your words. Plenty of people who approach the natural world with a very scientific attitude, give free rein to their hopes, dreams, imaginations, and inherited lore, when approaching the great unknown that lies beyond the natural world.

i can't find any link to the surveys you allude to but i'd like to read them if you would provide a link?

without reading them, i can only assume the reason that most scientists believe in some ultimate being is the same as my own reason: because people who explore further than man normally explores are more apt to stumble upon sights and experiences that seem to defy all logical explanations.

but WHY is that a license to skip the obvious line of reasoning which states "i can't comprehend this yet, perhaps i will be able to in the future" and make instead a beeline for "GOD DID IT?"

that doesn't seem logical in the least. if it sounds anything like a man of science at all, then it sounds like a DEFEATED man of science who is so distraught at finally coming to the realization of how little he/she truly does know that he/she decides to find solace in god rather something slightly less insane... like cutting a swath through a jungle of drugs.

forgive me if im making really broad assumptions here, but belief in god, however it's defined, is clearly also a pretty bigass assumption.

If an article of faith were ever to be supplied with concrete proof, not only would it cease to be an article of faith, but it would cease to be supernatural too.

what rationale is there for chosing faith over reason? faith has never solved a problem. praying to god has never magically made my math homework complete by morning when i was in elementary school, only MY OWN reason did the work that god wouldn't do. now, i'm a bit behind on my metaphysics, but what purpose is there in defining god as how you believe god's nature to be, if the god as you choose to define him does nothing for you?

because it makes you happy? i'd like to allude to a study i heard of once, that tested whether people ENJOY wine, watches, and other luxury goods that cost too much, even more than their cheaper but better tasting, looking, etc, competitors. turns out they do. people enjoy a $400 bottle of wine that tastes like piss, because it costs $400. it's psychosomatic, so is any psychological benefits anyone gains from belief. people are, by some major flaw in our physiology, wired to take pleasure in things that don't even exist if they only believe strongly enough in it.

i'd like to conclude by bringing up the aztecs. brilliant civilization, beyond a doubt. yet they worshipped the sun. they mapped the heavens yet thought the sun was controlled by a god. we now know the sun isn't controlled by a god, but conveniently the mainstream religions advanced their stranglehold on impressionable people by explaining that god controls everything AND the sun.

how convenient, and megalomaniacal, to assume that big wide beautiful universe was engineered and designed by a being that looks more or less like we, his exhalted children, do. let me ask you. if everything needs to have an engineer, as the followers of god clearly believe, then who engineers chaos? the devil? the anti-god?

are we so fucking proud that we can't simply say "I DON'T FUCKING KNOW" when we're presented with a situation we can't understand? so proud that we need to grin a big smug grin acting like we know something nobody else knows because we're imagining god with the air of some sort of logical mindfuck that only we can understand individually? What the hell do we need god for, when all the answers to the questions in our universe are just waiting for us to uncover?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

i can't find any link to the surveys you allude to but i'd like to read them if you would provide a link?

http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html I'm pretty sure this article cites the same survey I was talking about earlier, though it's a different article.

without reading them, i can only assume the reason that most scientists believe in some ultimate being is the same as my own reason: because people who explore further than man normally explores are more apt to stumble upon sights and experiences that seem to defy all logical explanations.

I hear ya. Quite possibly that's a major motivating factor.

but WHY is that a license to skip the obvious line of reasoning which states "i can't comprehend this yet, perhaps i will be able to in the future" and make instead a beeline for "GOD DID IT?"

that doesn't seem logical in the least. if it sounds anything like a man of science at all, then it sounds like a DEFEATED man of science who is so distraught at finally coming to the realization of how little he/she truly does know that he/she decides to find solace in god rather something slightly less insane... like cutting a swath through a jungle of drugs.

forgive me if im making really broad assumptions here, but belief in god, however it's defined, is clearly also a pretty bigass assumption.

I ask you the same thing I asked Binge Artist: What obligates a scientist to let rationality guide his/her every move? I understand that those who do are more likely to choose a career in science. But that doesn't change the fact that someone who isn't a strict rationalist can make a fine scientist in their field.

what rationale is there for chosing faith over reason? faith has never solved a problem. praying to god has never magically made my math homework complete by morning when i was in elementary school, only MY OWN reason did the work that god wouldn't do. now, i'm a bit behind on my metaphysics, but what purpose is there in defining god as how you believe god's nature to be, if the god as you choose to define him does nothing for you?

The rationale for choosing faith is to seek a personal connection with the source of all being, and a sense of place and purpose as an integral and indispensable part of creation.

There is no contradiction in being rational in dealing with the natural, physical world, and at the same time holding out faith that the natural world we observe is only one small part of something greater that lies beyond.

because it makes you happy? i'd like to allude to a study i heard of once, that tested whether people ENJOY wine, watches, and other luxury goods that cost too much, even more than their cheaper but better tasting, looking, etc, competitors. turns out they do. people enjoy a $400 bottle of wine that tastes like piss, because it costs $400. it's psychosomatic, so is any psychological benefits anyone gains from belief. people are, by some major flaw in our physiology, wired to take pleasure in things that don't even exist if they only believe strongly enough in it.

First of all, how do you know that no higher power of any kind exists, and that the natural world we can observe and measure is all there is? This has been a running assumption throughout your entire post. The fact is, none of us know. So your guess is as good as mine. And as I've said, scientists are only bound to follow the scientific method in inquiring about what's observable, testable, and measurable in the physical world. Beyond that, they're free to speculate, and hope and dream, all they want.

i'd like to conclude by bringing up the aztecs. brilliant civilization, beyond a doubt. yet they worshipped the sun. they mapped the heavens yet thought the sun was controlled by a god. we now know the sun isn't controlled by a god, but conveniently the mainstream religions advanced their stranglehold on impressionable people by explaining that god controls everything AND the sun

how convenient, and megalomaniacal, to assume that big wide beautiful universe was engineered and designed by a being that looks more or less like we, his exhalted children, do. let me ask you. if everything needs to have an engineer, as the followers of god clearly believe, then who engineers chaos? the devil? the anti-god?

I really recommend you read some Process Theology. Or some works on Kabbalah. You talk before about 'God as however you choose to conceive of him', but these last couple of paragraphs show that you're stuck on this image of a guy in the sky, who dwells outside the universe somehow.

are we so fucking proud that we can't simply say "I DON'T FUCKING KNOW" when we're presented with a situation we can't understand? so proud that we need to grin a big smug grin acting like we know something nobody else knows because we're imagining god with the air of some sort of logical mindfuck that only we can understand individually? What the hell do we need god for, when all the answers to the questions in our universe are just waiting for us to uncover?

Are we so fucking proud as to assume that everything about existence is uncoverable, measurable, and understandable?

We're getting off topic. This thread is not an argument about God's existence. It's about whether belief in God keeps one from being a scientist, or vice versa, without going crazy. All you need to do is look at the demographics of people who do science, to see that this is hardly the case.

 

[thujone]

my god (irony,) that article was so terrible i almost began smashing my head against the wall. in conclusion,

RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."

so the answer is clearly yes, men of sciences can also be men of god, but it doesn't mean they're very good at being scientists. haven't the requirements for getting B.Sci/M.Scis been getting more and more lax in the past decade or so? Yes they have, do click on THIS to discover. as if the original article that spawned this post wasn't proof enough of "research getting weirder." 8)

I ask you the same thing I asked Binge Artist: What obligates a scientist to let rationality guide his/her every move? I understand that those who do are more likely to choose a career in science. But that doesn't change the fact that someone who isn't a strict rationalist can make a fine scientist in their field.

because the very nature of science is, as previously mentioned, to look for CONCRETE SOLUTIONS in SEEMINGLY ABSTRACT PROBLEMS. I hate going in circles. Believe me, I know that someone who is a strict rationalist will actually make a WORST scientist than someone with the capacity to believe that nothing is truly impossible. But that has NOTHING to do with belief in Gods that can't possibly ever be reconciled with PROOF that they do exist. A great scientist wants to GET to impossible, and GRASP it. There is no GRASPING god rationally, ergo there's no bloody reason for any intelligent scientist to waste their time on faith and belief that can't be quantified.

The rationale for choosing faith is to seek a personal connection with the source of all being, and a sense of place and purpose as an integral and indispensable part of creation.

There is no contradiction in being rational in dealing with the natural, physical world, and at the same time holding out faith that the natural world we observe is only one small part of something greater that lies beyond.

so basically, you're implying there's nothing contradictory about a scientist spending their whole life studying science just to believe there's a whole nother universe out there in which none of their previous knowledge can apply. what the hell is the purpose of learning science in the first place then? so they can waste their time on rational things when there's so obviously a god beyond all the rational that requires of you no knowledge of anything, just a bit of FAITH!?

First of all, how do you know that no higher power of any kind exists, and that the natural world we can observe and measure is all there is? This has been a running assumption throughout your entire post. The fact is, none of us know. So your guess is as good as mine. And as I've said, scientists are only bound to follow the scientific method in inquiring about what's observable, testable, and measurable in the physical world. Beyond that, they're free to speculate, and hope and dream, all they want.

I don't, but it's common practice in scientific circles to call bullshit on claims that can't actually be proven by anyone, anywhere, ever. Let's assume for a moment that "God" is totally universal, and that there are no real prophets, no manifested descendants, and no other gods to fuck with the original's grand schemes.

Let's also assume we know nothing about the nature of God. Basically, we're turning back the clock to before religion even existed as a means by which to explain God with. Now YOU tell me, what should i tell others the nature of God is like? What should i tell others about his works, about his desires, about his rewards? I see nothing of God, except for strange visions that manifest themselves when I dream. Coincidentally, I often incorporate elements of what's on my mind before I sleep in my forthcoming dreams.

Gee, I guess if someone had God on their mind it would seem likely that their imagination is manifesting all kinds of cool shit about what God's like in their minds, so they can wake up and feed the rest of the world with bullshit about what they FEEL God is like. Without knowing for certain of course, since you probably would never have even assumed God exists in the first place were you not full of paradigms saying otherwise.

Are we so fucking proud as to assume that everything about existence is uncoverable, measurable, and understandable?

what's proud about saying "I don't know?" what's proud about admitting that we have no freaking clue? obviously it's far more proud to act like there's something we know that nobody else knows and using that supposed knowledge as an excuse to be a prig to non-believers.

We're getting off topic. This thread is not an argument about God's existence. It's about whether belief in God keeps one from being a scientist, or vice versa, without going crazy. All you need to do is look at the demographics of people who do science, to see that this is hardly the case.

the topic question clearly warrants a binary response. i assume the reason this thread was left open in spite of that was to foster discussion, which by natural means must include probing the nature of God and whether or not it can possibly meet half-way with science, which I've been continually pointing out it does not and for such and such reasons.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

my god (irony,) that article was so terrible i almost began smashing my head against the wall.

Granted. But the point was the survey, not the article. I just linked to the first article I found that analyzed the survey. I can find another, with better data interpretation and better writing, if you like.

so the answer is clearly yes, men of sciences can also be men of god, but it doesn't mean they're very good at being scientists.

Doesn't mean they're bad either. Since science involves an intricate and robust system of checks and balances, including collaboration and peer review, I see any truly bad scientist, regardless of their metaphysical beliefs, getting selected out of any institution of good repute pretty quickly. As my wife said about engineering, either the thing you build works or it doesn't. So I scoff at the notion that scientists who believe in the supernatural are a polluting and detrimental presence at institutions of science.

because the very nature of science is, as previously mentioned, to look for CONCRETE SOLUTIONS in SEEMINGLY ABSTRACT PROBLEMS.

Granted philosophy of science is not my area. But I was always under the impression the essence of science is measuring and testing concrete things, and finding statistical correlations in those measurements. But I digress.

Believe me, I know that someone who is a strict rationalist will actually make a WORST scientist than someone with the capacity to believe that nothing is truly impossible. But that has NOTHING to do with belief in Gods that can't possibly ever be reconciled with PROOF that they do exist. A great scientist wants to GET to impossible, and GRASP it. There is no GRASPING god rationally, ergo there's no bloody reason for any intelligent scientist to waste their time on faith and belief that can't be quantified.

Again, what obligates a scientist to limit themselves to the measurable and quantifiable all the time? Seems to me they're only obligated to do this while they're on the job with their test subjects.

so basically, you're implying there's nothing contradictory about a scientist spending their whole life studying science

No scientist spends their WHOLE LIFE studying science. Well OK, maybe a few do. But most are like the average person, they have lots of other hats they wear and roles they play in their day to day lives, multiple facets to their personalities that call for different thinking and relating styles.

just to believe there's a whole nother universe out there in which none of their previous knowledge can apply. what the hell is the purpose of learning science in the first place then? so they can waste their time on rational things when there's so obviously a god beyond all the rational that requires of you no knowledge of anything, just a bit of FAITH!?

I'll point out the fallacy of this by way of analogy. Say I grow up in a small isolated tribal society in the Amazon rainforest. I eventually learn that there's a much larger society called Brazil all around me, and if I foray into it, none of my previous social knowledge will necessarily apply. Would that render all my original rearing and education utterly pointless? If I stay tied to my people, certainly not.

I don't, but it's common practice in scientific circles to call bullshit on claims that can't actually be proven by anyone, anywhere, ever.

*sigh* I don't know how much clearer I can make this. What you're describing is a style of thinking that predisposes one to gravitate toward the sciences. It's not a prerequisite for doing science. A prison guard who likes to arrange flowers and listen to Celine Dion in his spare time is probably going to cop shit from his coworkers if they find out. But that doesn't inherently make him less qualified to be a prison guard.

what's proud about saying "I don't know?" what's proud about admitting that we have no freaking clue? obviously it's far more proud to act like there's something we know that nobody else knows and using that supposed knowledge as an excuse to be a prig to non-believers.

Um... neither I nor anyone else in this thread said anything about believers being prigs to non-believers. One can hold beliefs without being smug or showy (let alone preachy!) about them to anyone. I don't know how it is where you work or study, but in my program, we have every shade of worldview, from evangelical Christian to staunch materialist, and everyone gets along fine. Why? Because we talk about, and collaborate on, MEDICINE, not religion or philosophy or politics or spirituality. We talk about what we have in common, not what we don't. At my school, it would be in INCREDIBLY poor taste to openly take someone to task for their beliefs, or really anything about how they live their lives, except how they learn and practice medicine. The subject doesn't even come up. I assume it's probably the same at any higher education science department or scientific place of work: you talk about, and judge each other based on, what you're working on, and what you believe about ultimate reality is your own private business, just like your sex life.

In other words, I have a hard time believing that most scientific circles are places where open mockery of things supernatural is common, and you're socially and professionally blackballed if you won't partake in it.

I think the reason we're repeating ourselves and not seeing eye to eye on this, Thujone, is because my definition of science is very functional -- it's merely something one DOES. Whereas you seem to see it as more than that, something along the lines of a way of life, a global mindset. I don't buy your argument because I see the doing of science as utterly divorced from belief, philosphy, and ideology altogether.

 

[Papa1]

so the answer is clearly yes, men of sciences can also be men of god, but it doesn't mean they're very good at being scientists. haven't the requirements for getting B.Sci/M.Scis been getting more and more lax in the past decade or so? Yes they have, do click on THIS to discover. as if the original article that spawned this post wasn't proof enough of "research getting weirder." 8)

The rates of religiousness among scientists are roughly the same as they were at the turn of the 20th century. I'm taking this form a CBC program, but I'm happy to look up details if you want.

The conflict between religious beliefs and the scientific method (whatever that is) is largely a pop culture myth. More on this later.

 

[Binge Artist]

^ Is it possible for the statement "anything is possible" to be false?

ugh...oh....

I say it's necessary that the statement "anything is possible" is false.

For, suppose "anything is possible" were true in some "hypothetical, logically-consistent universe."

Then, in said universe, any statement that begins with "Necessarily" is false (because it's negation would be possible).

Hence, in ANY universe, any statement that begins with "Necessarily" is false (because there exists a particular logically consistent universe in which that statement is false).

Thus, "Necessarily, nothing is necessary"...which is a fucking META contradiction.

Gotta love the illogic of self-referential logic.

 

[mihna]

Would you kill god?

So, I finally started watching Haruhi Suzumiya. A show about a girl who is a god and does not realize it and is capable of recreating the universe to suit her unconscious desires.

Anyways, I had a sudden chilling thought...can you kill god? What would happen if you tried? I asked myself what I would do if I was her best friend kyonand realized I would seriously contemplate murdering her to find out.

My possible sociopathic tendencies aside, what would you guys do? Would you decline for moral reasons? Or fear? Or would your urge to see what happens get the best of you?

 

[law12345]

no I would just twist God's arm a bit to make some changes.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

No.

I don't believe in suicide.

 

[malakaix]

I have no desire to kill myself.

 

[Jabberwocky]

If we get into Gods that can be slayed, we are into something like gnosticism or polytheism I would think.

But the question for one that would slay God would have to be the same question one would ask before an assassination or coup. Who is the successor or likely successor? Who would benefit or be hurt by the transition or vacuum that occurs?

But that assumes God has exercised any of his power. If he is like the deist God it maybe does not matter: impotent through inaction vs impotent by having been slayed, seem about the same to me.

 

[mihna]

I guess I should clarify that the girl in question has no idea that she is god. The way her divinity was described makes it plausible that she would be able to die because she thought she was mortal. So as long as she died before she could register the thought "I don't want to die"....

I don't understand the suicide posts. I never said she was neccesary for the universe to exist. Just that she could change it. Of course I'm sure she could kill me herself, if I gave here the chance.

 

[mihna]

If we get into Gods that can be slayed, we are into something like gnosticism or polytheism I would think.

But the question for one that would slay God would have to be the same question one would ask before an assassination or coup. Who is the successor or likely successor? Who would benefit or be hurt by the transition or vacuum that occurs?

But that assumes God has exercised any of his power. If he is like the deist God it maybe does not matter: impotent through inaction vs impotent by having been slayed, seem about the same to me.

You'd just have a godless universe. She wasn't a god in the judeo-christian sense. More like an upstart that could bend reality to her will. Then again maybe not. hence the desire to test it.

 

[malakaix]

It sounds like your looking for an answer which relates to the specific show more so then an answer to the question itself 'Would you kill God?'.

 

[mihna]

well the title is certainly ambiguous but I did relate my questions to a specific set of circumstances.
A broader discussion would be difficult what with all the different views of what could be a god and the inevitable religious discussion that would emerge.

 

[Raw Evil]

I, personally would - providing that slaying this god of yours would be visible to and acknowledged by its believers.

Then the human race could finally get on with their lives.

 

[delta_9]

This is quite a funny thing to mull over actually. I find it interesting that any of you think you could kill god in the first place.

OP, killing god just to find out what would happen is pretty fucked up IMO. I would at least need a legitimate reason to even consider it in the first place. I would much rather tell her she's god and hope she'd make the world a better place. If she wasn't down with that then maybe I'd kill her

Btw I watched 1 episode of The melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya a few months ago and was turned off pretty quick.

I don't understand the suicide posts. I never said she was neccesary for the universe to exist. Just that she could change it. Of course I'm sure she could kill me herself, if I gave here the chance.

I think they meant to say that they were god. I could be wrong though.

 

[mihna]

This is quite a funny thing to mull over actually. I find it interesting that any of you think you could kill god in the first place.

OP, killing god just to find out what would happen is pretty fucked up IMO. I would at least need a legitimate reason to even consider it in the first place. I would much rather tell her she's god and hope she'd make the world a better place. If she wasn't down with that then maybe I'd kill her

Btw I watched 1 episode of The melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya a few months ago and was turned off pretty quick.

I think they meant to say that they were god. I could be wrong though.

I think one of the factions in the show actually considered killing her because they deemed it too dangerous to allow her to exist. But they were considered a radical party and the official stance was wait and see.

But idk the open-ended question would haunt me...If I was 100% convinced she was a god, I may give in to my curiosity and justify it with her being dangerous later.

 

[delta_9]

I think one of the factions in the show actually considered killing her because they deemed it too dangerous to allow her to exist. But they were considered a radical party and the official stance was wait and see.

But idk the open-ended question would haunt me...If I was 100% convinced she was a god, I may give in to my curiosity and justify it with her being dangerous later.

So you'd rather be dangerous now than allow her to be dangerous later? 8)

 

[Changed]

"If you meet Buddha on the road... kill him."