[Kinitari]

Yeah it's not reincarnation in the typical sense, but I'm arguing that you are the result of every event that occured in history to make up who you are. This is a kind of physical memory, like footprints on the sand. It's not memory in the sense that the data is stored as electrical impulses somewhere, but that the existence of something leaves an imprint (however small) in the universe. And no, I would argue that an atom is more than just a point in space time. It's the sum of its entire history through the universe. Otherwise, what would differentiate one atom from another? RE: Photons

Can't you see how using the word 'reincarnation' is horribly suited for what you are describing? You're not defining reincarnation in any known sense, you're simply re-appropriating the word to your physics explanation to give it a sense of mysticism.

If you want to say that I am the result of every event in history before hand, you are arguing for determinism - this is a commonly used term that describes exactly that, reincarnation is out of place in the framework of determinism.

Same as with using memory - memory is data that is stored in electrical impulses, what you are describing is something else.

[V_Arnold]

I would argue about why science can freely evolve and rebuild its framework over very short amounts of time, yet religion and spiritual belief systems cannot or should not or would not.

It is more and more apparent that unchanging, thousand-year-old teachings represent a point of view where we had very little intellectual, physical and spiritual freedom, we lacked a lot of the understanding of the World around (and inside) us.

It is obvious that in paralell to scientific understanding, spiritual understanding should improve and conjure up more and more "proper" concepts about how and why we do exist.

[Kinitari]

I would argue about why science can freely evolve and rebuild its framework over very short amounts of time, yet religion and spiritual belief systems cannot or should not or would not. It is more and more apparent that unchanging, thousand-year-old teachings represent a point of view where we had very little intellectual, physical and spiritual freedom, we lacked a lot of the understanding of the World around (and inside) us. It is obvious that in paralell to scientific understanding, spiritual understanding should improve and conjure up more and more "proper" concepts about how and why we do exist.

But what is the basis for this change? What methodology is used, what pool of information are you using to grow and learn and apply these changes? Is it Science? Than it is no longer religious spirituality, it is now science. Is it something else? If so what is it?

Also, Religion has always claimed to know truth, when Science as we know it never does - it simply has 'the best possible explanations'. When you claim to know shit from the get go, and you've been called out on it, you are taken less seriously every time you change your mind. If you start off saying "Well, I don't know for sure, but using this data, this makes sense" - when something contradicts that and you change and evolve, it's no big deal - heck with science that's built into it's framework.

edit: FURTHER, Religion makes baseless claims - it's in it's nature. Moving from one baseless claim to another does not lend religion any more validity nor is it a sign of growth.

[Haly]

Can't you see how using the word 'reincarnation' is horribly suited for what you are describing? You're not defining reincarnation in any known sense, you're simply re-appropriating the word to your physics explanation to give it a sense of mysticism. If you want to say that I am the result of every event in history before hand, you are arguing for determinism - this is a commonly used term that describes exactly that, reincarnation is out of place in the framework of determinism.

I admit to the former, again, word games. The reincarnation post was non-serious, I didn't expect to be called out on it.

The latter, not so much. Memory is storage of information. If you view the universe as a giant simulation (of what I have no clue, but it's not unreasonable), then everything that occurs in the universe is stored with physical objects, such as atoms, molecules etc. Think of it as a very advanced computer.

For example, consider the crab computer.

By taking advantage of the way the crab behaves, the scientists can recreate logical gates using crabs. In this situation, the crabs represent information, despite being crabs. What if a computer could be built that used atoms in order to store data? The manipulation of those atoms would be analogous to calling functions on variables. Such a computer would be indistinguishable from a universe, ours included.

Your natural reaction is "but you assume the universe has a purpose" or "you assume someone made the universe in order to calculate something, that sounds like god talk to me". But it's important you don't misunderstand. I'm not claiming that I know the purpose of the universe, nor that it even has one, just that it can be considered a computer running a simulation, because it's:

1) Automatic: Does not require some outside force.
2) Programmable: Has known laws and follows those laws. Where they come from is not important, just that they are part of the universe and that they can be changed (theories involving multiple universes).
3) Arithmatic Based: If you've ever tried to program simulations of physics you'd have an appreciation for how complex it is, mathematically speaking, yet the universe pulls it off continuously with no hiccups at all.

[GrizzNKev]

I admit to the former, again, word games. The reincarnation post was non-serious, I didn't expect to be called out on it. The latter, not so much. Memory is storage of information. If you view the universe as a giant simulation (of what I have no clue, but it's not unreasonable), then everything that occurs in the universe is stored with physical objects, such as atoms, molecules etc. Think of it as a very advanced computer. For example, consider the crab computer. By taking advantage of the way the crab behaves, the scientists can recreate logical gates using crabs. In this situation, the crabs represent information, despite being crabs. What if a computer could be built that used atoms in order to store data? The manipulation of those atoms would be analogous to calling functions on variables. Such a computer would be indistinguishable from a universe, ours included. Your natural reaction is "but you assume the universe has a purpose" or "you assume someone made the universe in order to calculate something, that sounds like god talk to me". But it's important you don't misunderstand. I'm not claiming that I know the purpose of the universe, nor that it even has one, just that it can be considered a computer running a simulation, because it's: 1) Automatic: Does not require some outside force. 2) Programmable: Has known laws and follows those laws. Where they come from is not important, just that they are part of the unvierse. 3) Arithmatic Based: If you've ever tried to program simulations of physics you'd have an appreciation for how complex it is, mathematically speaking, yet the universe pulls it off continuously with no hiccups at all.

Just because you can make a computer out of crabs doesn't mean all crabs are now a computer. Just because you say you can make a computer out of atoms doesn't instantly mean all atoms in the universe are now part of a computer. For your point to make sense, you'd have to assume that all crabs always make up a computer. Can you call a function on a variable with any given set of crabs right now?

[Haly]

Never said all crabs are computers.

Never said the universe is a computer, did say universe can be interpreted to be a computer.

Is this honestly really that alien a concept? It must be something on my end at this point. Am I just crazy?

[V_Arnold]

But what is the basis for this change? What methodology is used, what pool of information are you using to grow and learn and apply these changes? Is it Science? Than it is no longer religious spirituality, it is now science. Is it something else? If so what is it?

I am fine if we call it pseudo-spirituality, personal spirituality, or new age spirituality. But what it ultimately is?

Well, it is all about integrating. Spirituality presents a framework where one can turn to the inside and ponder, digest, understand and move around in the inner planes of existence. One decides what is preferred, what is not, and at the end of the very day, it is about integrating. I have found that every spiritual concept deals with recognizing more and more about what we really are, "re-membering" ourselves to the point where we become beings that are far bigger than these individual masses going around, having conflicts with each other to no end, blaming each other, hurting each other. It is the forming of oversouls, where the boundraries of individual minds, individual bodies and individual existences stop mattering, and ideas, thoughts and actions get initiated ALWAYS in a group-level, way above what we are experiencing right now.

Spirituality, spiritual wisdom is simply remembering, re-membering, accepting, integrating. I know, it is a long shot from traditional "this is NOT what we are, this is NOT what we are" religions, and therefore is not a strict enemy of any atheist methodology, but that is fine.

Now, we have one side of the coin, the processing of the re-membering, the integrating.
The other side of the coin is science. It is the usage of all knowledge that we have accumulated in our current points of views to better understand how things do work. It can deal with spiritual matters, and it does not matter if it turns into spiritual matters into scientific matters. That matter will still stay on the surface of the same coin. But as we gain more processing power, we gain more and more previously accumulated knowledge,and we can "outsource" a lot of the previously required processes to things like computers or study groups, we can get a better understanding of what is happening and what we are integrating in the other side of the coin, so to speak.

I see nothing wrong with a balanced unity of this two tools that our consciousnesses use. When things are out of balance, we will have very serious reactions within our system to correct it. See: our current reality and the catalysts it can offer.

Never said all crabs are computers. Never said the universe is a computer, did say universe can be interpreted to be a computer. Is this honestly really that alien a concept? It must be something on my end at this point. Am I just crazy?

You are not crazy, neither is your partner. You do not share the same passion for act of philosophic wondering, that is clear.

[Kinitari]

Never said all crabs are computers. Never said the universe is a computer, did say universe can be interpreted to be a computer. Is this honestly really that alien a concept? It must be something on my end at this point. Am I just crazy?

You're not meeting any defined version of a computer, you're applying the term computer to the universe, and working backwards. The universe can't be interpreted as being a computer in any practical sense. I can interpret the universe to be a living entity, and then use that interpretation to redefine life, but no one would listen to me

[Haly]

Nonsense, I would.

Have you considered that the Earth is alive? It goes through cycles (temperature changes, tectonic shift), it has problems (pollution, asteroids), and built in checks and balances (natural disasters, extinctions). Just as you are the sum of your cellular constituents (blood cells, neurons, liver cells, etc), so is the Earth the sum of all its inhabitants, living or otherwise.

Honestly, why limit your thinking just because no one would listen to you? Thinking is fun!

[V_Arnold]

Nonsense, I would. Have you considered that the Earth is alive? It goes through biological cycles, it has problems, and built in checks and balances. Just as you are the sum of your cellular constituents (blood cells, neurons, liver cells, etc), so is the Earth the sum of all its inhabitants. Honestly, why limit your thinking just because no one would listen to you? Thinking is fun!

And remember, solar systems and galaxies are "alive" in this sense as well. It almost never stops. Almost because there is the Source.

[Kinitari]

I.... I'm not high enough for this conversation.

[Haly]

I'm not high at all, weed just makes me sleepy.

Consider, life is defined as self sustaining patterns. To you, life is animals, people, birds. But go down and you find insects, and bacteria, and protozoa. Makes sense, right? How about you go up? Stars are formed from space dust. They burn out, or go nova, and the resulting nebula becomes the birthplace of a new star. Galaxies form when a bunch of stars get close enough to create a gravitational pull large enough to pull other nearby stars together, eventually settling in one of the many forms of galaxies. Is that not also a self sustaining pattern?

Anyway this is horribly off track. Atheism vs theism, someone say something so I can respond.

[Patapwn]

Never said the universe is a computer, did say universe can be interpreted to be a computer.

If you say you can interpret something as a computer, that's pretty damn close to calling it a computer :P

You're taking the word "computer", which obviously has man made connotations, and applying it to the universe. With this application comes the man made connotations such as it was created by a human (god) to run a task (gods will) etc. etc. I get the jist of what you're saying but computer or any word besides 'universe' does not accurately describe the universe.

For example you said the universe can be interpreted as running advance calculations that people attempting to recreate in a physics lab should respect (or something like that). How does one conclude the universe is actually running these calculations? Whose to say any calculation is done at all but merely an exercise in fundamental physics? And whose to say the universe is anything at all? Are we talking about matter? Or some sort of container that includes 'space' and matter? Whose to say that this universe is conjoined with other parts of itself like a computer is?

It's just a poor choice of words

[Haly]

Whose to say any calculation is done at all but merely an exercise in fundamental physics?

The exercise of physics is the calculation. As I said, the universe is computer so advanced that it simulates physics by exercising physics. When I want to get an object to rotate around a point, I program some basic rules, tweak some constants, then let it rip. The universe is no different. It's just better at doing physics than I am.

And whose to say the universe is anything at all?

Are we getting into Descartes here? If we are let me know, I need to brush up on Meditations.

Are we talking about matter?

Typically in conversations concerning the universe matter tends to be a focal point, yes..

Or some sort of container that includes 'space' and matter?

Space is the container, if you will, although that's a gross simplification of the underlying physics. I'm sorry don't have the training to convey it in technical terms, all I have are analogies and metaphor.

Whose to say that this universe is conjoined with other parts of itself like a computer is?

Wat. Are you trying to find analogues for components of a mechanical computer such as the bus, cpu, hard drive, ram, mobo, psu, etc. Because that's not the point, the point is the universe can be considered a computer because data is being moved around automatically. That's what a computer is on the most abstract level.

[Patapwn]

The exercise of physics is the calculation. As I said, the universe is computer so advanced that it simulates physics by exercising physics. When I want to get an object to rotate around a point, I program some basic rules, tweak some constants, then let it rip. The universe is no different. It's just better at doing physics than I am.

Again, the usage of wording is suspect. Calculation: "...a deliberate process for transforming one or more inputs into one or more results..." The bold is important in regards to this thread.

As for the second part, are you claiming the universe has the mind of/like a human? In order to program with 'calculations' one must have some form of consciousness right? This just seems to be a deliberate attempt to use word connotation for theist effect.

Are we getting into Descartes here? If we are let me know, I need to brush up on Meditations.

Typically in conversations concerning the universe matter tends to be a focal point, yes..

Space is the container, if you will, although that's a gross simplification of the underlying physics. I'm sorry don't have the training to convey it in technical terms, all I have are analogies and metaphor.

I don't think you understood the point I was trying to convey. The overall line of inquisition was to show that the universe should be the topic, not the universe as a bastardized metaphor for a computer.

Wat. Are you trying to find analogues for components of a mechanical computer such as the bus, cpu, hard drive, ram, mobo, psu, etc. Because that's not the point, the point is the universe can be considered a computer because data is being moved around automatically. That's what a computer is on the most abstract level.

Computer:"...a programmable machine designed to automatically carry out a sequence of arithmetic or logical operations."

The point of my post was to say that 'computer' was a poor choice of words given it's connotations. I recommend a word like 'system' or perhaps even 'universe' when discussion the universe for further debate :P

[Haly]

Alright, I'm tired of this, and I'm probably losing my mind from the lack of sleep.

Sorry for the digression everyone.

[chas]

Alright, I'm tired of this, and I'm probably losing my mind from the lack of sleep. Sorry for the digression everyone.

No, you are doing quite well. You should keep going. It is not a digression at all.

We are stuck in past (i.e, religious) explanations of these concepts that in using those explanations would be futile because it is not compatible with our current state and current understanding of the world. Times have changed and so will our understanding and explanation of these concepts. Although the explanations are different, the underlying truth is the same. Just like the laws of physics, no matter how the world changes the laws of physics does not change. You throw someone up and it will come falling down. That is the law of gravity. Truth is the same.

These "religious concepts", such as God, reincarnation, the spirit, etc., were merely explained in ways that the people at the time could understand and accept. They didn't take a whole lot of convincing to accept these ideas because people, and society in general, were a lot simpler compared to today. However, a lot of these "concepts" can be explained with science today because we have a better understanding of the universe, such as what Haly and others were doing. These concepts or "miracles" in religous texts only seem magical or supernatural because the people at the time did not have enough of an understanding to explain it. If you took a flashlight to an isolated tribe and used it in front of them, they will think you are god and had just performed a miracle. But to you, it's not a miracle. It's just science. It was the same for the people in the past.

Like others have said, religion/faith and science are merely two sides of the same coin. One is the inner while the other is the outer. One is unobservable, the other is observable. One is intangible, the other is tangible. Just like the wind, we cannot see it with our eyes but we can see the effects of it, such as the flags moving, and so we know wind exists. It is the same for religion and science. The cause and the effect.

The last book of the bible is titled "Book of Revelations" for a reason. All truths will be revealed and uncovered in these times. Do not dismiss God entirely so easily. The purpose of past religions was to pave the way for the current times. Buddha spread the word of God for 40 years and emphasized Great Compassion because that is what the people at the time needed. Confucius spread the word of God throughout China and emphasized on the five virtues (benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faith) because he lived during the Warring Period of China and that was what was needed. Jesus was the Buddha of the Isrealites and emphasized on Great Love and getting to know God.

Of course, the other religions did not use "God". Lao Zi, the teacher of Confucius used the word "Tao" instead. Tao = God. Both religions are referring to the same thing. God can be called Allah, Mother Nature, Tao, Universal Energy, whatever you like. Each religion is a only one side of what Christians call “God" but cannot represent the entirety of of "God". Just like each of us have two arms, two legs, a body, and a head, each body part is only part of our human body and cannot represent the entire human body. And we take care and love each part of our body. God is the same.

Surely people know of the story of "The Blind Men and the Elephant." If not you can view it here in the form of a poem: Story here.

If you don't have time to read it, here is the moral of the story:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

We must rid ourselves of our rigid obstinacy for religion. We must look past words and see what they truly mean, otherwise we will continue to fight amongst each other when we in fact are on the same page talking about the same thing. God lives in the heart, not in the mind. If we only use our mind to understand God, we will never understand Him because the mind is Human. Divine revelation can only be divinely interpreted. Any other interpretion is merely human interpretation, which are subject to bias.

Everyone must understand that You are God and God is You. You are not the entirety of God but you are nonetheless God. You have just forgotten because you have been too accustomed to being human. If a male human being and a female human being reproduce and have a child, would you not call that child a human being? By the same token, since God gave birth to us and we are His children, how can we be anything less than a God? Like the Bible has said, we were created in the image and likeness of God. We have the exact same creative ability as Him. But like when a human infant is born, the infant is not yet as capable as his parents until he grows and matures and can manifest and exercise the same capabilities as the infant's parents. We are just like that in relation to God.

I think I will stop here. I've wrote too much. I hope people will read this. :) I hope I didn't simplify things too much...

[V_Arnold]

Very wise words, Chas. I love seeing this appearing even on GAF.

[Orayn]

Nonsense, I would. Have you considered that the Earth is alive? It goes through cycles (temperature changes, tectonic shift), it has problems (pollution, asteroids), and built in checks and balances (natural disasters, extinctions). Just as you are the sum of your cellular constituents (blood cells, neurons, liver cells, etc), so is the Earth the sum of all its inhabitants, living or otherwise. Honestly, why limit your thinking just because no one would listen to you? Thinking is fun!

The Earth, or specifically the biosphere, shares a few similarities with living things, but life has a much rigorous definition than you're using. And yes, thinking is fun, but it's best to stay grounded in reality when possible.

[Orayn]

No, you are doing quite well. You should keep going. It is not a digression at all. We are stuck in past (i.e, religious) explanations of these concepts that in using those explanations would be futile because it is not compatible with our current state and current understanding of the world. Times have changed and so will our understanding and explanation of these concepts. Although the explanations are different, the underlying truth is the same. Just like the laws of physics, no matter how the world changes the laws of physics does not change. You throw someone up and it will come falling down. That is the law of gravity. Truth is the same. These "religious concepts", such as God, reincarnation, the spirit, etc., were merely explained in ways that the people at the time could understand and accept. They didn't take a whole lot of convincing to accept these ideas because people, and society in general, were a lot simpler compared to today. However, a lot of these "concepts" can be explained with science today because we have a better understanding of the universe, such as what Haly and others were doing. These concepts or "miracles" in religous texts only seem magical or supernatural because the people at the time did not have enough of an understanding to explain it. If you took a flashlight to an isolated tribe and used it in front of them, they will think you are god and had just performed a miracle. But to you, it's not a miracle. It's just science. It was the same for the people in the past.

No objections so far, I guess.

Like others have said, religion/faith and science are merely two sides of the same coin. One is the inner while the other is the outer. One is unobservable, the other is observable. One is intangible, the other is tangible. Just like the wind, we cannot see it with our eyes but we can see the effects of it, such as the flags moving, and so we know wind exists. It is the same for religion and science. The cause and the effect.

And with that comes the key distinction - Tangible reasoning can be used to produce tangible results. I'm uncomfortable calling science and religion "two sides of the same coin," because science works as a way of acquiring knowledge and producing useful things.

The last book of the bible is titled "Book of Revelations" for a reason. All truths will be revealed and uncovered in these times. [SNIP]

You lost me. I know it's actual your worldview, but it sounds similar to a Gnosticism-influenced backstory for a tabletop game I was trying to make a while back. It sounds cool, but that kind of thing just doesn't fit with how we understand the world to work. No, I'm not going to make wild assumptions just because my knowledge is incomplete.

EDIT: Crap, sorry for the double post. Thought I was editing.

[chas]

No objections so far, I guess. And with that comes the key distinction - Tangible reasoning can be used to produce tangible results. I'm uncomfortable calling science and religion "two sides of the same coin," because science works as a way of acquiring knowledge and producing useful things.

Since "religion" seems to have a negative connotation to it, I will try to avoid it. Let's just use "observable" and "unobservable" for science and religion. Rather, "truth" would be a better term than "religion" because religion was created by man from the "truths" expounded by people like Jesus, or Buddha. Before many of the laws of physics in science became known, people were going about their daily lives without knowing that they were subject to these laws. Because these laws could not be seen with our naked eye. However, they have always existed. It wasn't until Isaac Newton noticed the effects of gravity that the concept of gravity came into being. So, although we can't see this "unobservable" law, we came to know the law through its "observable" effects. The metaphysical concepts revealed in religous texts are merely the "unobservable" that we have yet to discover.

You lost me. I know it's actual your worldview, but it sounds similar to a Gnosticism-influenced backstory for a tabletop game I was trying to make a while back. It sounds cool, but that kind of thing just doesn't fit with how we understand the world to work. No, I'm not going to make wild assumptions just because my knowledge is incomplete. EDIT: Crap, sorry for the double post. Thought I was editing.

Sorry. That was more for the religous people. It is often more convenient to explain using pre-existing religous concepts because due to the simpler and more innocent people of the past, they didn't require detailed explanations to accept these truths. As we are now mainly a world based in science, I will try my best to use science to explain these things. I do not have a PhD so I cannot claim to understand every facet of science, so I hope you and others can help me where I lack and we can learn together from each other. :)

It is very difficult to explain these "concepts" because it is like a third dimensional being telling a two dimensional being that there exists a z-axis but the two dimensional being cannot fathom that idea because to him there's only the x and y-axis. That is why all the teachers in the past, such as The Buddha, had to use parables, analogies, metaphors to describe these things. They had to reinterpret "God's World" in the third dimensional world in order for us to better understand and relate.

Just a little fun tidbit: Do you know what the fourth dimension is like? In the third dimension, when I am looking at you face to face, I can only see the front of you. I cannot see the back of you or the top of you, etc. But in the fourth dimension, in the same situation, I would be able to see all 360 degrees of you from any angle. Anyway, this isn't important. Just thought I'd share. Science will soon uncover all these things soon enough. Hence, "revelations".

You say that it does not fit with how we understand the way the world works. Can you elabatorate on that and provide examples so I can have a better understanding of what you mean or are referring to?

I apologize for my shallow wisdom and knowledge. I hope I can make these things easier to understand.

[Arment]

So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!

I like that.

[chas]

Very wise words, Chas. I love seeing this appearing even on GAF.

You have given me too much credit. I am not wise or wiser than anyone. It is like someone who is born now and someone who is born ten years later, the person born now will seem much wiser and more knowledgeable only because he was born first so he already had 10 years to learn about the world. The person born 10 years later will be equally, or more, wise and knowledgeable when he reaches the same age. Everyone is equal. Just who came first who came after.

[BocoDragon]

The last book of the bible is titled "Book of Revelations" for a reason. All truths will be revealed and uncovered in these times. Do not dismiss God entirely so easily. The purpose of past religions was to pave the way for the current times. Buddha spread the word of God for 40 years and emphasized Great Compassion because that is what the people at the time needed. Confucius spread the word of God throughout China and emphasized on the five virtues (benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faith) because he lived during the Warring Period of China and that was what was needed. Jesus was the Buddha of the Isrealites and emphasized on Great Love and getting to know God. .

This is like saying atheism is actually teaching the formlessness of God. :P

Buddhism and Confucianism taught nothing about God. They cannot be said to represent similarities with theism. Occasionally all faiths will necessarily touch upon the nature of the universe, or suggest some "all is one" description of the universe: but these faiths were utterly uninterested in the question of whether this universe has a personality, has needs and wants, has rules, etc.

"God" isn't just any concept about the nature of the universe. It is the universe-as-thinking-being theory. And it is not universal to all religions at all. Many religions do not suggest that this universe is like a person, with whom we are supposed to form some sort of inter-personal relationship.

"All religions point to the same truth" is syncretism. It's an after-the-fact modern creation made by well-intentioned people, who want a nicey nice situation where it turns out everyone was right after all. It holds no value if you actually compare the theologies of the various belief systems.

[Narcosis]

"God" isn't just any concept about the nature of the universe. It is the universe-as-thinking-being theory. And it is not universal to all religions at all.

I myself have long thought that the actual word "god" should stay relegated to defining a specific type of being because the word has just too much baggage associated with it to actually be understood by the general public at large when it's used in the way chas uses it.

While there is a certain segment of the population that would go along with this sort of thing (probably the people who check the "spiritual, but not religious" option), I really think this sort of philosophical application of the word god has no practical use in society on the whole.

[BocoDragon]

I myself have long thought that the actual word "god" should stay relegated to defining a specific type of being because the word has just too much baggage associated with it to actually be understood by the general public at large when it's used in the way chas uses it. While there is a certain segment of the population that would go along with this sort of thing (probably the people who check the "spiritual, but not religious" option), I really think this sort of philosophical application of the word god has no practical use in society on the whole.

Yes. The majority of theists use the word God to describe a situation where there is a kind of cosmic being who thinks much like a human. Has wants, desires, decisions, plans, rules, etc.

Some people use the word God (more inaccurately, perhaps) to say that the universe is alive, like a potted plant is alive. We are all a part of that cosmic potted plant, etc. :P

And others still use the word God to describe that the universe is just a really cool machine, and this is certainly an inaccurate use of the word. What they want to say, I feel, is not only that this is a really cool machine (scientists might not disagree)... But also, it's just "magic" somehow.

I suppose there is a certain power and confidence you get in your life from this "magic" attribution you can ascribe to the universe.... But it's nothing more than a story. It has no referent to any fact about the universe. It doesn't say anything at all.

[soul creator]

Blind Men and Elephants: Religion, Science, and Understanding Big Complicated Things

(yeah I post a ton of Greta Christina articles, but she pretty much has a relevant one for every conceivable religious discussion, lol)

On science:

...and as each year and decade and century passes, we get a clearer picture of what an elephant is. It’s not perfect — there are big holes in the picture, and almost certainly mistakes as well. But we have theories about elephant-ness that make astonishingly accurate predictions about how the elephant will act and what we’ll find next on our continuing elephant explorations. And we have better and better forms of elephant perception all the time: both better techniques for exploring the elephant, and better methods for testing that our theories and data about the elephant are good. Our understanding of an elephant is better now than it was a century ago, and in another century it’ll be better still. Why does this work? Because the elephant is really there. Because there is actually something out there that we can compare notes on. Because when two blind men feel an elephant’s trunk, they’re feeling the same real thing.

...and on religion

In religion, we have no such consensus. The Snakians and the Treeists and the Ropafarians are still squabbling, still dividing up into sects, still coming up with no better argument for their beliefs than “Other people say it” and “I feel it in my heart” and “You can’t prove it didn’t happen.” And they’re still coming up with no clearer picture of the elephant: no better ability to predict what the elephant will do, no better skill at guiding the elephant in the direction that they want, than they had a year ago, or a hundred, or a thousand. Why? Because there’s nothing there. It’s all just stuff people made up. Consciously or un-. People can’t show each other the evidence for the Snake, or the Tree, or the Rope, and convince each other on the basis of the evidence… because there is no evidence. There is no snake, no tree, no rope. There’s nothing there. There’s just the conviction that the snake has to be there, because everyone else says there’s a snake, and our mother and father and all our teachers and authorities say there’s a snake, and we Snakians have believed in the snake for generations, and we’ve known about the snake since childhood, and besides we just feel the snake in our hearts. The reason that there’s no increased consensus about religion? The reason that different religions today are as different, as inconsistent, as mutually contradictory, as they always have been, for thousands of years? The reason that prayer and prophecy haven’t gotten any more effective over the years? The reason isn’t that God is a huge, complex, multi-faceted elephant that no one person can completely and accurately perceive. The reason is that there is no elephant.

[chas]

This is like saying atheism is actually teaching the formlessness of God. :P Buddhism and Confucianism taught nothing about God. They cannot be said to represent similarities with theism. Occasionally all faiths will necessarily touch upon the nature of the universe, or suggest some "all is one" description of the universe: but these faiths were utterly uninterested in the question of whether this universe has a personality, has needs and wants, has rules, etc. "God" isn't just any concept about the nature of the universe. It is the universe-as-thinking-being theory. And it is not universal to all religions at all. Many religions do not suggest that this universe is like a person, with whom we are supposed to form some sort of inter-personal relationship. "All religions point to the same truth" is syncretism. It's an after-the-fact modern creation made by well-intentioned people, who want a nicey nice situation where it turns out everyone was right after all. It holds no value if you actually compare the theologies of the various belief systems.

Atheism, being based in Science, would be teaching the "shape" and "form" of God. If I have the terms wrong, please correct me.

Confucius, who is the student of Lao Zi, inherits the concept of Tao. In chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Zi, it states:

There was something formless and perfect before the universe was born. It is serene. Empty. Solitary. Unchanging. Infinite. Eternally present. It is the mother of the universe. For lack of a better name, I call it Tao.

This is the same as the beginning of Genesis in the Bible. In meaning not in words. The religions of the past all talk about the what Christians called God. They have merely spoken of God in the way that makes sense to the culture and language at the time and place they were in. And so, it will seemingly come out as if they were different, but the underlying truths are the same. It is like translating something, whether it is a game or book, from one language to another language. It's not possible to translate all the meanings and nuances that are present in then source language into the target language. So game companies decide to "localize" the game into the target language, changing all the jokes, stories, puns, etc into local ones that the target audience can readily understand and relate. It is the same with all the Saints sent by God to educate people of these truths, such as Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, etc. They "localized" God's language (or "truth" if you prefer) into their respective cultural, language, etc. according to the timing and needs of the people at that time. And so they emphasize different things and not necessarily spend a lot of time on certain concepts.

That"s why I brought up the story of the blind men and the elephant. If you truly delve into the religious texts of each religion, you will find how similar they are. Of course, we don't have all the time in the world to do that. And we do not necessarily possess the wisdom require to interpret then religious texts correctly. Or have the time to go to priests, monks, etc. to inquire about them. However, if you cannot understand the "source" as some people call it, you will understand everything because all things come from this "source". The Bodhidharma once said, "From one all things became, and all that become must return to one." The "one" he referred to is what Christians call "God".

Yes, the universe itself has a "consciousness" whom Christians call God or called Tao by Lao Zi. Every religion has a different name for God. "God" is this unchanging, not created, not destroyed, "governer" of this universe. And all things are in accordance to this "God". Of course, science has different names for these things. If the planets in our solar system did not follow the laws and principles then it will do its own thing and probably go off course and crash into other planets. But because there are these laws and principles that it adheres to that these problems don't occurr. Religions call these underlying laws and principles "God". In essence, God = Nature.

That is why I have said we must look past words. We are too fixated on the words that we have forgotten the meaning behind the words. Like the emotions of love, compassion, mercy, joy, etc. we have in our hearts, we cannot see them as they are "unobservable" but the effects it has can be seen. Whether it is the effects on others, ourself, our physical chemistry (such as the electrons moving about in our brain), it is this "unobservable" that came the "observable". Thus, God who is "unobservable" to us is in our hearts and not in our mind (brain).

Sorry I seem to have gone on for too long. Never knew how tiring this could be! I apologize if I am unable to explain it in easy to understand ways.

[chas]

I myself have long thought that the actual word "god" should stay relegated to defining a specific type of being because the word has just too much baggage associated with it to actually be understood by the general public at large when it's used in the way chas uses it. While there is a certain segment of the population that would go along with this sort of thing (probably the people who check the "spiritual, but not religious" option), I really think this sort of philosophical application of the word god has no practical use in society on the whole.

Yes, the term "God" has too many negative things associated with it so it is not always the best term to use. However, as there are both theists and atheists in this topic, using "God" would make it easier to understand for the theists. Atheists can think of "God" as nature.

However, religion and truth cannot be separated. If religion did not have truth, it cannot flourish. Truth without religion cannot be spread. The unobservable and the observable. The cause and the effect. From another perspective, schools without scientific facts cannot sustain itself. And scientific facts without schools cannot be spread and known. Whether a religion or school still retains truth or fact, is another story and only each person can decide for themselves whether it is truth or not.

[GrizzNKev]

Yes, the term "God" has too many negative things associated with it so it is not always the best term to use. However, as there are both theists and atheists in this topic, using "God" would make it easier to understand for the theists. Atheists can think of "God" as nature. However, religion and truth cannot be separated. If religion did not have truth, it cannot flourish. Truth without religion cannot be spread. The unobservable and the observable. The cause and the effect. From another perspective, schools without scientific facts cannot sustain itself. And scientific facts without schools cannot be spread and known. Whether a religion or school still retains truth or fact, is another story and only each person can decide for themselves whether it is truth or not.

Okay, now you lost me. I generally don't agree with most of what you said because from my perspective it's little more than playing with words and speculating on anything you want without asking for verification, but I was enjoying the read anyway until we got there. What do you mean by this?

[CornBurrito]

However, religion and truth cannot be separated. If religion did not have truth, it cannot flourish. Truth without religion cannot be spread.

I'm going to have to disagree with this.

[Haly]

While there is a certain segment of the population that would go along with this sort of thing (probably the people who check the "spiritual, but not religious" option), I really think this sort of philosophical application of the word god has no practical use in society on the whole.

Religion actually does have practical benefits:
1) It's a way of connecting with other people like any sort of hobby or interest or creed.
2) It provides answers to certain questions that are by nature impossible to answer empirically, for some people this can be a very powerful motive to be religious.
3) It can be used as a political tool to manipulate large amounts of people.
5) It reduces the complexity of the universe in to something digestible and understandable.

Whether these are "good" things is, obviously, very debatable, but don't say that religion has no practical value because that's just not true. If it didn't, we wouldn't have invented it.

[ivedoneyourmom]

Street gangs actually does have practical benefits: 1) It's a way of connecting with other people like any sort of hobby or interest or creed. 2) It provides answers to certain questions that are by nature impossible to answer empirically, for some people this can be a very powerful motive to be in a gang. 3) It can be used as a political tool to manipulate large amounts of people. 5) It reduces the complexity of the universe in to something digestible and understandable.

Many different forms of social groups offer these same benefits.

[Haly]

Indeed, would you say they are all useless as well?

[chas]

Okay, now you lost me. I generally don't agree with most of what you said because from my perspective it's little more than playing with words and speculating on anything you want without asking for verification, but I was enjoying the read anyway until we got there. What do you mean by this?

Sorry. Words are not the best way to explain these things since each word in their respective language has their own cultural associations and everyone can potentially interpret them differently. Words have become too restricted and limited in what it can express. It also tends to change.

Everyone comes from different backgrounds, be it scientific, religious, spiritual, etc., so trying to use a term that fits all those is almost impossible. My playing with words is merely to point out that all those different terms are referring to the same thing, so I used them interchangeably. I did not mean to play with words, so I apologize.

When I referred to "religion and truth", it was from the perspective of religion. Perhaps, if I use "religion" and "God", in the case of Christianity, it may be easier to understand. In Christianity, God is this absolute "truth" that we cannot observe or touch. And this God willed the universe into existence. God is the unobservable and the cause, and what we now see is the observable universe and the effect, from Him willing the universe into existence. It is like the wind that we cannot see that caused the leaves to blow. So the leaves being blown is the effect caused by the wind blowing on it.

Of course, you should not just believe whatever is told to you because we have the capacity to think for a reason. The teachers in the past merely point them out to you first so that you are not subjected to the consequences by not knowing and not following it. If someone told you that there is this thing called the law of gravity (before you came to know it existed), and that if you walk off a cliff you will plummet to your death, but you refused to listen. One day when you do walk off a cliff, you will finally understand what that person was telling you, but it will be too late because you are already dead.

That is why Buddha talked so much about karma and reincarnation. Buddha told everyone that there is this thing called the "law of cause and effect" that extends beyond to just this life, and if you don't follow it you will suffer its consequences. If you attack someone, they will want to attack you back, probably harder than you attacked him. If you add reincarnation into the mix, the person may choose (perhaps they didn't have the opportunity yet) to attack you in another lifetime. The boomerang effect: What goes around comes around. And eye for an eye. That is why a lot of people have all these unreasonable, unexplainable things happen to them.

However, most people just chalk it up to bad luck or an unfortunate fate, but everything happens for a reason. Randomness is merely a lack of understanding all the factors that are at play. Once you figure out all the factors, it is no longer random. Science has done quite well to figure out formulas that are accurate enough to predict things with little error. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to accurately predict where the rocket will land and build the rocket according to the needs of our calculated predictions and succeed at what we were trying to accomplish, such as landing on the moon.

I need to learn to be more succinct... sorry. Science is now more capable of explaining and verifying the truths in various religious texts. Science, you can see; faith, you cannot see. The people in the past had to have faith in what they were taught. Even if they did not believe in karma and reincarnation, when Buddha told them to be forgiving, merciful, and compassionate, is that not something should be followed regardless? His disciples just had to have faith in what was being taught to them until one day they can understand themselves.

Religions aren't telling us to do bad things. Religion tells us to be loving, forgiving, respectful, compassionate, etc. But we have become so focused on who is right, what words are used, that we have cast aside what it was trying to tell us in the first place. Of course, religion in its current state is not the same as it was originally. Surely, everyone knows of the telephone game? By the time the message gets passed to the last person, it has become so different from the original message that it's not even the same message anymore. It doesn't even take getting to the last person to distort the entire message; sometimes just after a few people, it has already become entirely different. Expand that to religious texts being subjected to thousands of years of the "telephone game", and you get what you have now. Not to say the current religious texts are entirely distorted; the fact that they can last for thousands of years says a lot. If it wasn't important, no one would keep paying attention to it. Let alone for thousands of years. The integrity of the religious texts have been preserved quite well.

I will stop here. I think I say too much at once. I apologize.

[ivedoneyourmom]

Indeed, would you say they are all useless as well?

Nope. I'm just pointing out that the virtually all the utility gained from being a member of a religious group are the same gained for just about any group, gangs included. Street gangs are possibly slightly better for the world than religion though. They put out less misinformation, and likely kill fewer people.

[Haly]

I'm well aware, although I would question the assertion that "religion kills".

[chas]

I'm going to have to disagree with this.

This is just from the perspective of religion. If religion no longer contained any truth, no one would follow it, and it will slowly diminish until it disappears. For example, Buddha says we should be compassionate, merciful, forgiving, etc. But if the temples did not even practice those truths, and did the opposite, then no one would bother going anymore. In order for these truths to spread quickly, given how many people there are on Earth, it will need some kind of "structure" or "organization" to keep the truths from deviating. Religion is what we have now come to call these "structures" or "organizations".

If everyone did their own thing and spoke their own truths, then it becomes a mess. It is like how science can be taught in different ways but the teachings must all refer back to the fundamental laws and principles of the universe. If you don't adhere to it, you are merely teaching a theory.

[C4Lukins]

I would argue about why science can freely evolve and rebuild its framework over very short amounts of time, yet religion and spiritual belief systems cannot or should not or would not. It is more and more apparent that unchanging, thousand-year-old teachings represent a point of view where we had very little intellectual, physical and spiritual freedom, we lacked a lot of the understanding of the World around (and inside) us. It is obvious that in parallel to scientific understanding, spiritual understanding should improve and conjure up more and more "proper" concepts about how and why we do exist.

Religion is constantly evolving, for good or bad. I mean there is probably a million different forms of Christianity at this point. The same with other major religions.

Science goes in the same way. Faith based theories. Dark matter for instance, the expanded form of the universe accelerating against what we had accepted with Newtons laws and such.

An object in motion and such. But wait, these objects are accelerating instead of being constant. So instead of dismissing Newton, we find a new way to justify his theory by inventing a theory of our own. There is shit out there that we cannot see, and it is physically interacting with the cosmos. And while we cannot see it, we can explain it through watching how the expansion of the universe is occurring, so we are essentially detecting an invisible force by how everything in the universe is responding to it.

That takes faith. Because most of us are not intelligent enough to do this research on our own, so we depend on the explanations of those that are super intelligent. Science can be an act of faith as well. Not sure where I was going with this.

[Haly]

The counterargument is that the experiments verifying some new theorem or such have been conducted. Even if you lack the training or ability to fully understand them, the potential for understanding is not beyond your reach or the reach of any human. With sufficient time and resources, anyone (without some sort of severe learning disability) can verify for themselves the truth of these experiments.

However you could make a similar argument for religion, that with enough prayer and whatever you can understand God. Then you get into a whole side argument about claims and whatnot and no one gets anything done. Which is why I'm not a fan of this counterargument, because it leaves itself open to too many loopholes.

[krioto]

Religion is constantly evolving, for good or bad. I mean there is probably a million different forms of Christianity at this point. The same with other major religions. Science goes in the same way. Faith based theories. Dark matter for instance, the expanded form of the universe accelerating against what we had accepted with Newtons laws and such. An object in motion and such. But wait, these objects are accelerating instead of being constant. So instead of dismissing Newton, we find a new way to justify his theory by inventing a theory of our own. There is shit out there that we cannot see, and it is physically interacting with the cosmos. And while we cannot see it, we can explain it through watching how the expansion of the universe is occurring, so we are essentially detecting an invisible force by how everything in the universe is responding to it. That takes faith. Because most of us are not intelligent enough to do this research on our own, so we depend on the explanations of those that are super intelligent. Science can be an act of faith as well. Not sure where I was going with this.

where ever it was you were going, please stop.

Scientists provide evidence to support their assumptions/thoughts. i've yet to see any evidence for the god-team.

So, if faith is believing in something where the person asserting a claim provides empirical, reviewed, supported evidence for why they believe this or that, then I guess you could almost say that people have 'faith' in such findings.

But surely this is a poor analogy to religious faith, and at best, misleadingly giving religious faith a sort of 'false authority' in comparison to the real world.

[ivedoneyourmom]

This is just from the perspective of religion. If religion no longer contained any truth, no one would follow it, and it will slowly diminish until it disappears. For example, Buddha says we should be compassionate, merciful, forgiving, etc. But if the temples did not even practice those truths, and did the opposite, then no one would bother going anymore. In order for these truths to spread quickly, given how many people there are on Earth, it will need some kind of "structure" or "organization" to keep the truths from deviating. Religion is what we have now come to call these "structures" or "organizations". If everyone did their own thing and spoke their own truths, then it becomes a mess. It is like how science can be taught in different ways but the teachings must all refer back to the fundamental laws and principles of the universe. If you don't adhere to it, you are merely teaching a theory.

I would like to introduce you to the plant S. pumilum, it uses deception to be pollinated and reproduce. It produces chemicals that smell like rotting flesh to attract flies to the flower. I bring it up, because I think it is important to notice that things that simply seem like truth are all that are needed for the continued propagation of a flower - I have little doubt they would not at least be a bit effective in the propagation of a meme.

Haly: For starters, I will refer you to 16th and 17th century Europe.

Edit: chas - Fun fact: Buddhism often embraces the deviating from the original message - it can view itself as an ever evolving system of thought and practice.

[Haly]

Could I have some hints? I'm not very good history so I'm not sure what events or wars you're referring to.

[C4Lukins]

The counterargument is that the experiments verifying some new theorem or such have been conducted. Even if you lack the training or ability to fully understand them, the potential for understanding is not beyond your reach or the reach of any human. With sufficient time and resources, anyone (without some sort of severe learning disability) can verify for themselves the truth of these experiments. However you could make a similar argument for religion, that with enough prayer and whatever you can understand God. Then you get into a whole side argument about claims and whatnot and no one gets anything done. Which is why I'm not a fan of this counterargument, because it leaves itself open to too many loopholes.

That is sort of what I was trying to say. I am not a religious guy. I am a person who through personal experiences comes to certain conclusions. And anything outside of my own research, topics that require me to depend on the word of others, that is simply faith to me. Religion or science it does not matter. Unless I am in the gutter proving such and such to myself, I must use faith to get the truth. And I do not care how many scientists or priests you throw my way, unless I understand the topic at a high level, I do not register it as fact.

[ivedoneyourmom]

Could I have some hints? I'm not very good history so I'm not sure what events or wars you're referring to.

You remember that time Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the All Saints Church? There was a fallout from that that resulted in over a hundred years of wars throughout Europe on what form Christianity would eventually take - and it ultimately fractured into what we have now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

[imtehman]

Religions aren't telling us to do bad things. Religion tells us to be loving, forgiving, respectful, compassionate, etc. But we have become so focused on who is right, what words are used, that we have cast aside what it was trying to tell us in the first place. Of course, religion in its current state is not the same as it was originally. Surely, everyone knows of the telephone game? By the time the message gets passed to the last person, it has become so different from the original message that it's not even the same message anymore. It doesn't even take getting to the last person to distort the entire message; sometimes just after a few people, it has already become entirely different. Expand that to religious texts being subjected to thousands of years of the "telephone game", and you get what you have now. Not to say the current religious texts are entirely distorted; the fact that they can last for thousands of years says a lot. If it wasn't important, no one would keep paying attention to it. Let alone for thousands of years. The integrity of the religious texts have been preserved quite well. I will stop here. I think I say too much at once. I apologize.

thanks to texts such as the dead sea scrolls, we do know that the religious scribes took great care when it came to passing down their holy texts from generation to generation.

The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25)

If the religious texts have been able to stand the test of time, we then have a telephone game of where the original source would be a audio tape recording and the message passed down from each subsequent listener would be distorted.

Hence why we have so many denominations because of the lack of people going to the original source but instead taking on the word of priests and pastors.

[krioto]

Hence why we have so many denominations because of the lack of people going to the original source but instead taking on the word of priests and pastors.

Maybe it was a case of 'If those guys can make this up, why shouldn't I?'

[The Technomancer]

Maybe it was a case of 'If those guys can make this up, why shouldn't I?'

I'm pretty sure its a case of "I'm going to preach and promote what feels right to me, and attribute my own opinions and prejudices as the word of the almighty creator of reality because he placed those feelings in my heart"

[krioto]

I'm pretty sure its a case of "I'm going to preach and promote what feels right to me, and attribute my own opinions and prejudices as the word of the almighty creator of reality because he placed those feelings in my heart"

Well, yes, you have a little more tact than I!

[C4Lukins]

where ever it was you were going, please stop. Scientists provide evidence to support their assumptions/thoughts. i've yet to see any evidence for the god-team. So, if faith is believing in something where the person asserting a claim provides empirical, reviewed, supported evidence for why they believe this or that, then I guess you could almost say that people have 'faith' in such findings. But surely this is a poor analogy to religious faith, and at best, misleadingly giving religious faith a sort of 'false authority' in comparison to the real world.

All I said is that I treat the topics equally. I am not dismissing science. And I am agnostic at best. My point was simply that I do not take science that I do not understand at face value. I have seen a dozen "super" scientists explain the death of certain periods on Earth in different ways.

Look at the global warming debate. Man made or natural? I have no clue because I personally cannot pluck the current clouds from the sky nor the clouds from 3000 years ago. We have 100 years of good climate change data, which is shit when we are aware that the Earth was completely covered in ice, ash, volcanoes....