[MEGA] God v.2

[New]

yes. it does. sometimes a question has to be asked.

 

[xexon]

Enlightenment cures the asking of questions.

"And without accepting both the manifest and unmanifest, you are not truly enlightened"

It isn't that I don't accept both, it's just that I can only find words for one of them.



x

 

[Papa1]

yes. it does. sometimes a question has to be asked.

Is this in response to my post??

 

[jazzlvr66]

I started my own journey from a scientific point of view.

Big Einstein fan.

Like him, I was looking for what ties everything together. The highest form of energy.

It wasn't until I made the jump from physics to metaphysics that I understood.

You can't involve yourself in metaphysics if you don't have a very extended range of perception. I was born that way, so the journey for me was very rewarding and continues to pay benefits to this day.

To know what God is has no dependency on thinking. The power of discrimination is the only real important element of that.

It is the ability to FEEL that reveals "God".

Beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the mind which processes that input.

If you do it correctly, all of creation becomes your body.



x

To Xenon: It's like you took the words right out of my mouth. I can so relate to your post. I, too, was involved deeply in the sciences (my career)...but then over time I expanded my understanding of 'everything' through entering the metaphysics realm. And yes, to comprehend God and reality, one has to be born extremely perceptive -- of your own sensory experiences AND experiences beyond the 5 senses. Take the Myers-Briggs personality test - you probably would score as an "INFP"? (just a guess)

 

[New]

Is this in response to my post??

yeah.

 

[ebola?]

Ask some scientists.
Survey response rates show biologists, chemists and physicists to have high rates of spiritual belief and religious affiliation. Increase your N by expanding to women.

ebola

 

[RedLeader]

Here's my reasoning:

My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?

Empirical science can only resolve/show physical things about the world. If a concept of a god extends its characteristics to the immaterial, or the metaphysical realm, then the physical sciences cannot completely prove or disprove the existence. Assuming that god possesses anything beyond physical properties, then for certain physical sciences cannot prove/disprove the existence. It is an open-ended question as to whether metaphysics (logic, set-theory, math, etc.) could. Again, though, you cannot "prove" something until you make a claim about what exactly it is that you want to prove - if you don't provide a candidate god, then you're not going to get anywhere. Even to prove that "no candidate god" could exist, you'd have to then provide a basic set of common denominator factors that all candidate gods would necessarily share.

I would say more, but I've written a novel in the S&T thread about the Universe origin, which touches a lot on how a creator would fit into what we know.

 

[Papa1]

yeah.

Oops, just confused which question you were saying yes to.

I don't see the contradiction. If anything, corrections made to a religious belief by scientific rigor seem like they have the potential to strengthen the belief in the end, as long as the two are melded thoughtfully. Thoughtful, principled belief seems central to solid religious faith.

I think the key to incorporating religion and science would simply be humility, that is an acceptance that you're likely to be wrong about a number of things - including your religious beliefs. Given this, I'd really answer an unqualified yes to your title question.

And I agree with Ebola - from what I've heard, the rates of religious belief among scientists is roughly the same as with the general population.

 

[xexon]

Just wanted to let you folks know this is my final post. Just no time. Ha ha.

I've enjoyed the conversations.

Final words?

Believe anything is possible.

Regards,


x

 

[rantNrave]

My problem with Christianity and religion in general is that there is an "US vs THEM" mentality that infects it and is at the root of their dogma. Christians judge others for not believing as they do. There is almost NEVER a "live and let live" attitude among the believers toward those who do not believe. Christianity doesn't teach tolerance. Tolerance is a most Christ-like quality that has been lost in modern day Christianity.

One day two missionaries showed up at my door and not wanting to be rude, I told them I would be happy to listen to them if they could truthfully tell me that at anytime previously in their day of speading their happy tidings of how much they love their Jesus, that when walking away from a house where they had been rejected, that they HADN'T judged or critcized the person that had rejected them as they walked away. If they could tell me that truthfully, I would gladly listen to them. A bewildered look came across both their faces, and they turned and walked away. As they left, I asked them to please refrain from criticising me while still in my yard, I think its rude.

 

[RedLeader]

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

ugh...oh....

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

I started my own journey from a scientific point of view.

Big Einstein fan.

Like him, I was looking for what ties everything together. The highest form of energy.

It wasn't until I made the jump from physics to metaphysics that I understood.

You can't involve yourself in metaphysics if you don't have a very extended range of perception. I was born that way, so the journey for me was very rewarding and continues to pay benefits to this day.

To know what God is has no dependency on thinking. The power of discrimination is the only real important element of that.

It is the ability to FEEL that reveals "God".

Beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the mind which processes that input.

If you do it correctly, all of creation becomes your body.



x

I totally agree with what you are stating! Normal academic intelligence can not perceive the spiritual in everything that is byond the mind that comes from a lightness of being!

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Samael, I have a further thought on this, that I didn't have time to write yesterday. To do science, one needs to follow the scientific method in collecting and assessing information. This involves withholding all conclusions or assumptions about one's test subject until supporting evidence is collected. To many people who go into the sciences, this mindset of hardnosed skepticism ("I'll believe it when I see it!") predates, underlies, and MOTIVATES their career choice. It likely already permeated the person's entire worldview long before they chose a career that made use of this mindset.

However, there are also many people who go into careers in science who DON'T have a deeply ingrained skepticism toward everything, the metaphysical included, as part of their basic worldview. I don't see this as problematic at all, so long as such people follow the scientific method strictly when working with their subjects.

Many scientists who are rationalists to the core, will poormouth colleagues of theirs who do and say things, even things utterly unrelated to their job (such as religion), which are not motivated by rationality. They'll get up on a high horse and claim they're more 'real' or 'full' scientists than these colleagues. I find their logic faulty -- just because you're a natural at something doesn't mean you'll necessarily perform better than someone who wasn't always so inclined. But then again, many people are always looking for reasons to feel better than others, especially in highly competitive games of prestige like science.

Think of it this way, by way of analogy: To be a prison guard, one needs to be able to be a hardass on the job. One does NOT need to be a hardass in one's private life, to do this job well. However, it shouldn't be surprising that this job does attract a large number of workers who ARE hardasses pretty much all the time. It also shouldn't be surprising that such workers consider themselves more qualified to do their jobs, than even highly competent correctional officers who turn into Ned Flanders every time they exit the barbed wire fence.

Oops, just confused which question you were saying yes to.

I don't see the contradiction. If anything, corrections made to a religious belief by scientific rigor seem like they have the potential to strengthen the belief in the end, as long as the two are melded thoughtfully. Thoughtful, principled belief seems central to solid religious faith.

I think the key to incorporating religion and science would simply be humility, that is an acceptance that you're likely to be wrong about a number of things - including your religious beliefs. Given this, I'd really answer an unqualified yes to your title question.

Very good point. I think humility is one important element of both good scientific inquiry AND good spiritual seeking. Both are, sadly enough, frequently undertaken with nary a bit of it. But my forays into both have seemed to drive home the point that there's a lot more going on than I could ever fully get a handle on, even in multiple lifetimes.

And I agree with Ebola - from what I've heard, the rates of religious belief among scientists is roughly the same as with the general population.

Really? Wikipedia cites a poll of American "non-industrial scientists", showing just under half claiming some sort of religious faith. This poll would seem to support a 'some do, some don't' trend, when it comes to scientists and religion.

I think this is a difficult thing to poll for, though, on many grounds. The results of such a poll have the potential to vary substantially, based on:
A) Who qualifies as a 'scientist'? It seems very arbitrary that the cutoff would be defined as "non-industrial". I have a hard time seeing an engineer as less of a scientist than a professor of Evolutionary Psychoneurosociobiology. As a budding medical doctor, I see myself as a scientist full stop. But I've been told, even here, 'that doesn't count', because I'm not a producer of research.
B) What qualifies as religious faith? My first instinct would be to set the bar very low: 'Are you open to the existence of ANYTHING supernatural?' But even something so seemingly clear-cut is problematic, because it's likely many people would answer 'yes' to this question, but who would feel wholly uninterested in the spiritual, at the same time. Each person's faith, or lack thereof, is unique to that person, and a function of his unique way of placing himself in the world.
C) How is the question worded? It's very hard to ask someone a question about something highly personal and subjective, without making the question loaded, or biased toward a certain response.

 

[Papa1]

Really? Wikipedia cites a poll of American "non-industrial scientists", showing just under half claiming some sort of religious faith. This poll would seem to support a 'some do, some don't' trend, when it comes to scientists and religion.

I'm taking this from a talk I heard on CBC; the gist was that many scientists are religious, so the popular idea of a divide between science and religion really isn't there on the personal level. I'll see if I can find a reference.

 

[Heuristic]

Here's my reasoning:

My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?

I'm going to shamelessly ignore ebola?'s and MyDoors extremely sensible approach of actually looking at men of the sciences (I had typed women of the sciences for the sake of gender equality, until I became sidetracked by speculating as to what a Women of the Sciences calendar would look like... maybe a hot female astronomist for April, an astrophysicist for August, etc., anyway I digress), noting that many are religious, and answering your title question yes. I just don't have anything to add to it. They're right.

So, instead, I'd like to focus on the argument you made in the paragraph above.

If God = reality, and science helps us understand reality, then yes.

But... isn't there a danger here that by assigning everything to be part of God, we're actually trivializing the concept of God? Do we want to be in the position of saying "I learned about God today" when we've researched the latest prices on laptops, for instance?

Or, to put it differently, are all facts about reality equally important to knowing God?

And supposing one day science comes up with a theory of everything, a theoretical framework in which all the physical phenomena of the universe might be explained and understood, does that then mean that we have somehow also understood God?

I have the sense that when people equate reality to God, they have something more in mind than a mere equivalence. I don't know what that is though. Any help?

 

[New]

Of course I'm assigning something more to it. That's my way of giving life meaning and how I express the connectedness of the knowledge. One learns about God by learning about laptops. One learns about God by studying migration patterns of arctic terns.

Wouldn't trivializing God in that aspect also trivialize reality by association? Maybe I'm assigning meaning to reality rather than trivializing God.

And yes. We may understand all of what has been lain before us and become the Deus ex Machina ourselves. But I doubt we'll be as we are now.

 

[Heuristic]

Of course I'm assigning something more to it. That's my way of giving life meaning and how I express the connectedness of the knowledge. One learns about God by learning about laptops. One learns about God by studying migration patterns of arctic terns.

Wouldn't trivializing God in that aspect also trivialize reality by association? Maybe I'm assigning meaning to reality rather than trivializing God.

And yes. We may understand all of what has been lain before us and become the Deus ex Machina ourselves. But I doubt we'll be as we are now.

I think I see what you're saying. So in reality being God, you find a sense of wonder, and even reverence, in reality? Or perhaps you believe that reality is God because of the sense of wonder and reverence that reality evokes?

If I've understood you correctly, then I would say that not only can those in the sciences be persons of God, but they frequently are--albeit without using the term God. I would even say that the best scientists, on this conception of God, almost must be persons of God (so long that being a person of God doesn't require one to use the term God), since the devotion of time and concentration to a subject that enables one to be the best necessitates a sense of wonder, reverence, and excitement. To be sure, social recognition plays a strong role, but it's just part of the equation.

Fair point about asking if I am trivializing reality. I think I was trying to express the idea that we find some aspects of reality more significant and important than others. Also... and maybe this belongs on another thread... what about those aspects of reality that we find repulsive and evil? Or that, if we have free will, we are continuously creating aspects of reality; are we also thereby creating parts of God?

I mean these as actual questions, not criticisms of your beliefs. I'm agnostic when it comes to these things, and have no axe to grind.

 

[New]

Well, just like reality is a process, God is a process. But due to the conservation of energy, we're not really creating or destroying anything, just rearranging it. And there HAS to be some retardedly complicated equation for the human brain. Like, grossly complicated.

And just because something is repulsive or evil doesn't mean one can't find awe in it, that "spark of the divine" that makes something meaningful and powerful. Meaning and power aren't always things we consider good at the time.

And yes, your first assessment is would be correct.

 

[yougene]

Fair point about asking if I am trivializing reality. I think I was trying to express the idea that we find some aspects of reality more significant and important than others. Also... and maybe this belongs on another thread... what about those aspects of reality that we find repulsive and evil?

A simplification of the model but imagine you have 2 different perspectives, the non-dual self and the relative self. The relative self/ego ranks and operates on distinctions of opposites( good, evil ). The non-dual self grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit. Every part reflecting the qualities of the whole from this view.

The non-dual perspective is the more inclusive one in that the relative self arises as an "object" within the perspective.
So when the relative self moves towards the Good it is also a reflection of the non-dual Self since it is not separate from it. When the relative self shows preferences it is a reflection of the non-dual Self. The non-dual in this way embraces both perspectives.

Or that, if we have free will, we are continuously creating aspects of reality; are we also thereby creating parts of God?

In Judaism and probably other traditions there is this idea of being co-creator. God created man so man could be as God. This takes on particular significance in the present day context, where the non-dual All is seen as unfolding/evolving Spirit.

 

[ebola?]

Really? Wikipedia cites a poll of American "non-industrial scientists", showing just under half claiming some sort of religious faith. This poll would seem to support a 'some do, some don't' trend, when it comes to scientists and religion.

Well, I contended that biologists, physicists, and chemists tend to have relatively high levels of religiosity, usually below but not too far from the rate of the general population. Sociologists and anthropologists tend to be irreligious, as religion becomes an object of study for many of them, enervating it's 'gut-level' impact.

It's just nicely ironic, given the moronic political debate about evolution vs. creationism, cast as a strict dichotomy.

I think this is a difficult thing to poll for, though, on many grounds. The results of such a poll have the potential to vary substantially, based on:

A) Who qualifies as a 'scientist'? It seems very arbitrary that the cutoff would be defined as "non-industrial". I have a hard time seeing an engineer as less of a scientist than a professor of Evolutionary Psychoneurosociobiology. As a budding medical doctor, I see myself as a scientist full stop. But I've been told, even here, 'that doesn't count', because I'm not a producer of research.

I think that the difference is that scientists employ systematic methods to collect empirical data that confirms, unconfirms, or revises theory (particularly governing laws) through which we understand the world.

If an engineer specializes in applying prior technique to concrete situations, that isn't science per se...at least taken alone. However, if this engineer, in creating novel solutions to problems at hand, invents new technology, particularly that which challenges or novel-ly illustrates physical theory, she is a scientist.

We're all scientists occasionally.

B) What qualifies as religious faith? My first instinct would be to set the bar very low: 'Are you open to the existence of ANYTHING supernatural?' But even something so seemingly clear-cut is problematic, because it's likely many people would answer 'yes' to this question, but who would feel wholly uninterested in the spiritual, at the same time. Each person's faith, or lack thereof, is unique to that person, and a function of his unique way of placing himself in the world.

mmm...These surveys are a bit un-nuanced. They ask, "Do you affiliate with any religion?" "Do you believe in a 'higher power'?" "How often do you go to church?" "Would you consider yourself 'spiritual'?" etc. I could look up the exact GSS questions, if you'd like.

ebola