Film short: Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God

My children will learn about our Ancient past

Ancient being defined as , Sumer clay tablets

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As you know by now, I count myself among the Roman Catholics. I have gathered from your posts that you are Jewish by race, if not by faith. Being Catholic is much the same. Even if I had no interest or desire to be Catholic, I still would be to some extent. It's not genetic, as is your case, but it is environmental. So you are Jewish by nature, and I and all Catholics are so by nurture. Even though you are agnostic or atheistic, I don't imagine you go out of your way to eat pork. If you find yourself at Jewish wedding or funeral, I am sure you know how to behave. I am also fairly certain you don't knock the hats off Hasids when you meet them and bully or threaten them or ask what the hell they're doing in this country anyway, am I right? Good for you!

So the only difference between you, the non-theist and me, the theist is that I still profess the religion of my birth and upbringing. Many of my former classmates, friends, relatives and neighbors do not - and that would be their business. I myself rarely attend mass, find most of what the pope says mildly amusing, and what the Church as a whole says rather stodgy and dull, and not 'with it' at all, and yet I remain Catholic. If I meet a priest I call him 'Father' and treat him with such respect that I agree with everything he says, and I can't help but want to give him the impression that I am far more devout than I actually am, or ever intend to be. If I were Bill Cosby, I would now say, "And that, my friends, is human nature!"

The reason I am saying all this, and being so frank, is so that you'll believe me when I say that when I read stuff like your

All I can think is, well, no, unh-uh. I went to their schools twelve years, and their masses for countless Sundays before, during and since those 12 years and no one has ever told me I have to believe in The Flood or anything else in The Bible especially, especially, if I found it irrational or beyond the bounds of my credulity.

Or you say:

I know it may seem that way to you, my friend, but it's not like that at all! How can I possibly explain? You're right! Religion is that, but it's so much more. You haven't scratched the surface. You haven't seen the forest for the trees.

Say we went to Steelers' game in the mid-1970's. You might remark, 'This is all just an excuse to sell beer and terrible towels' Absolutely correct, but that's Terry Bradshaw down there, and Franco Harris, and Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. The Steel Curtain no less! Now, perhaps you are a member in good standing of Alcoholics Anonymous. Are you going to tell me about the 12 steps and your great method toward responsibility and sobriety? Well, I'd agree. AA and it's methods are fine things, but while you were explaining all that to me you just missed The Immaculate Reception!

Do you see? There's no reason to think of religion vs. science as a dichotomy. They're not merely different schools of thought. One's religion is one's way of life - how you marry and how you live and die and are buried.. One's science is what makes one's car run and removes plaque from one's teeth and gives us amazing photos of Saturn. One is not better or worse than the other. They are just different realms.

I can't speak for other faiths, or football teams, but mine requires nothing in particular from me. My faith does not tell me how I must base my life. I have never heard that I or you are going to hell. My parents ask me to believe nothing. God has never spoken to me (in so many words) and I rarely speak to Him.

I love science and find it fascinating. Otherwise, why would I be here? It certainly isn't because have some hidden agenda or want to "turn SciForum all fundy".

The scientists are forever wanting evidence of God. But there are so many other things you have no evidence of. Is there evidence of marital devotion, loyalty between friends, honesty in all small things, freedom, dignity? How to prove any abstract concept is real?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Assuming that the phrase 'the scientific method' actually means something, one could make the same dismissive remark about ethics and fine art.

Is that really true? (You might want to read and respond to my post #55, up above.)

As far as evidence goes, one can obviously cite religious experience, of many different sorts. We might choose to discount its value as evidence, but that dismissal is a decision that needs some justification.

Why?

 

If others find comfort in religion, I'm OK with that.
Some of the best, nicest friendliest people in the world are Christains or some other religious faith.
Some of the most unkind cruel, unsavory people in this world are also Christain or some other faith.
Some of the nicest, friendliest people in this world are Atheists.
Some of the most unfriendly unsavoury people in this world are Atheist :shrug:

So do I. An astronomer I once met on another forum knocked back though my offer to polish his 'scope for him.
I wanted to be closer to the great astronomical discoveries.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He thought I meant something more sinister.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Science are forever asking for evidence of any and all potential scientific hypothesis. That is a requirement of the scientific methodology.
Why should they not ask for evidence of God?
And why should not believers, have the courage to answer that they have none, other than the majesty of the Universe around them.
Instead of trying to deride science, on a prime science forum.

 

I bet you've never lived in the bible belt.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...onism-concerns-rage-in-texas-textbook-debate/

 

Science is an ethic. Religions indoctrinate vulnerable minds (typically children) to commit certain taboos under that ethic. For example, science teaches that we must never lie, whereas religions teach any number of lies in connection with their indoctrination programs. Therein lies the rub.

I think you mean that in your debates with science-literate folks, they always ask you for evidence. And that's because truth is entirely evidence based.

Then they are not true. Either that or the possibility that they are true is currently being studied, and conclusions are premature.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes and yes.

The things you listed are not abstract. Bonds between people are mutually proven through their interactions. People who care about each other are protective of each other. What other proof do you need?

 

So you are Catholic by tradition, but you don't really believe the doctrine. That's fine, but you have to understand that is really is an insidious ideology. The worst part is it treats faith as a virtue. Science and religion are not compatible, they are opposite in nature. Acquiring knowledge requires a doubting intellect, something which Catholicism treats as a sin.

Also abstract concepts aren't real. If anything, the things you mentioned are values we tend to accept as social primates.

 

Agreed

For example


god said that apple was poisoned , which it was not , Eve lived

 

I'm an atheist/agnostic. (Atheist regarding deities like Yahweh, agnostic regarding philosophical functions like first-cause.) So I'm coming at this stuff from kind of the opposite direction, compared to you.

Nevertheless, I have to agree that the attitude you describe annoys me too.

 

This site standards gets lower and lower

Unfortunately

 

Fraggle, I agree with you on everything except I like the idea behind Marx's famous statement and think it displays a very social sentiment.

 

Alas, I'm afraid religion is where our minds want to go for comfort and help. I've not ever been able to find evidence that it isn't just from our own brains. I see the tendency toward being religious as bred into our DNA as a coping mechanism to deal with the negative side of sentience, especially self-awareness, which involves fear of things like loss, pain, suffering, and most of all, death. I, like you, wish this glum outlook was not the truest-looking scenario and that I could say God really exists. But the badness of how life itself works, by its very kill-or-die nature, promotes a negative conclusion. Darwin felt similarly, I believe, after contemplating the big picture drawn by his exploration and knowledge of living things. It's one other reason why, besides overpopulation, I recommend people not have children. It's just seems overall cruel to me to bring anyone else into this cruel, heartless world, where most all of our relief comes for others of our kind, and that is too unreliable and not very able to provide the comfort we wish we had God to help us with.

 

Whoa Elte! Looks like you need a dose of Max Ehrmann's Desiderata:

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly, and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious
to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter, for always
there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment;
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore, be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.

And whatever your labors and aspirations
in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

 

I do believe, but I can't see that the pope is all the way right, and I am personally all the way wrong. I can guess 85% of my churchmen feel the same. Catholicism certainly does not treat doubt as a sin. When Mother Theresa (posthumously) got in trouble for writing in her journal that she often experienced spiritual dryness and wondered if there really was a god and why He allowed all the suffering in the world. The worldly media hyped this up as scandalous. It was nothing of the sort! She was a human being and we all have such thoughts and doubts -even saints - especially saints. And if you can't understand that, there's not much more I can say to you.

They're not? So you don't love your wife? It's all just a social primate thing? A monkeyshine? Shame on you.

 

I'm pretty sure religion teaches not to lie. Does science do that too? Excellent, no conflict. Maybe I'm getting sleepy, but mostly your statement makes no sense to me. I can see you are down on religion as always, but what are you talking about? 'Commit taboos' makes no sense. Your example is not connected to your statement. You aren't even using your favorite 'therein lies the rub' phrase correctly. Or maybe I'm just getting bored with it.

What 'they'? You're tired too. Make some sense please. And truth is entirely evidence based? Hmm. I'll get back to you on that one.

Of course they are abstract. Do you know what the word means? My examples may have all been about social relations, but what of 'poverty' or 'speed'? - abstract nouns are things that have no physical existence but are nevertheless real things.

 

What's going on? I'm pretty sure that after my post #62 was gmilam, then spidergoat (now #66, #68) then came Elte #72. Now there are all these other posts mixed in. How can that be? I know Fraggle's post wasn't there at 1:13 like it says. it's like 7 or 8 posts suddenly appeared.

 

Science is more specialized to the left brain, while religion is more specialize to the right brain. The left brain is more logical and differential, which is why science defaults to specialization. The PhD is piled high and deep about one narrow topic to prove top level left brain proficiency. The right brain is more spatial and integral which is why religion tend to think in terms of all or nothing. This 3-D feeling/intuition makes it harder to see anything else as being needed, thereby doubting other paths to the same goal.

The explanation is simple but requires some experience using both sides of the brain in a conscious way to see how these fit like a glove. We use both sides of the brain, but only one is conscious at a time, with science and religion using the opposite sides for the conscious center. The result is the other side of each is more crude and less developed, making differences appear.

Science and religion is more of an expert in their particular side of the brain. The debate that often arises is when science and/or religion attempt to define itself within the context of the other side of the brain, where it is less of an expert. The Catholic Church tends to accept science and also maintaining faith keeping the two sides separate. This is not true of all of Christianity and other religions. When people within religion attempt to turn an integral or 3-D perception into a differential or left brained one; Creationists, this triggers a reaction by science who are much better at this side of the brain. On the other hand, when science attempts to turn differential science into an integral concept ; Evolution, religion is often the first to sense a flaw, since they are more skilled in that side of the brain. Evolution leaves out the global impact of water which was/is everywhere at all points of evolution.

Science is about seeing phenomena in the third person, outside itself, so it is reproducible by others. Religion is about contemplation and prayer where data is collected through internal processes based on dreams, visions, feelings, intuitions, etc. Both are science on their own right, with regular science concerned about the outer world of material reality, while religion collects data of the inner world of neural processes.

Eastern religions, for example break the tie with the world of the mass mind and ego, which is all about the outside programming in culture, and instead focus on internal meditation to transcend these limits. It requires one leave the left brain and attempt to join up with the right brain, to find universal truth. One much first move away from outside political truth which use language tricks in the left brain. Mediation requires self reliance, since there it is not a herd event but an individual journey. This is why self reliance in conservatism may be alien to left brain leftists.

In Buddhism, there are many different statues of the Buddha based on poses and postures, like the laughing Buddha. This is an attempt to express him in 3-D. The same person is being represented though the 3-D being broken down into a differential concept of unique postures. There is a common thread; Buddha, which is also connected a wide range of differential representations. This attempts to bridge the two sides of the brain, mostly to make it easier to migrate from the left to the right brain, and then finally back again. I respect the pioneers of the mind who came before.

As a scientist, by education, I found that data concerning religious claims, will not be easily found outside you, as expected by the left brain. Where you find this data is within your own mind and represents the natural workings of the mind and consciousness which operate in 3-D via the right brain. One can apply the method of science to this to help differentiate the observations into various groupings. But bringing this all together, requires the right brain become more conscious and autonomous. Experiences of the religious type become more common and makes one appreciate the experience of others.

 

@ Fraggle et al. All right, buddy. Don't get sports? Had not the religious upbringing I assumed you had? Very well. This thread I started began with a short film. Here's another. FYI, if anyone thought Danny Kaye was Irish (ergo Catholic) they'd be wrong. He's a good Hebrew lad -son of Jacob and Clara Nemerovsky Kaminsky, Ukrainian Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn. So that's nice.

[video=youtube;fXi3bjKowJU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXi3bjKowJU[/video]
​

Are you beginning to understand?