What is your personal religious ideology

While it was sheer speculation, the most poetic image of black holes I've ever heard was that they each led to wholly new universes, which are as like descendants of the universe from which they came. Therefore, summed up this person in the field, the most, "successful (i.e., productive) universe is the one w/ the most black holes."

To re-express that, w/ my own imagery, it's as if each collapsed star, "singularity," at the heart of every black hole is one of the universe's seeds, around which grows its dark fruit, & which sprouts-- or has the potential, if it finds the right soil-- to take root and grow into its own universal world.

 

@Daggdag I'm more a kind of pantheist, even if I don't believe in God as a being, but more a principle, that universe is an emanation of. That principle is life. It's closer of the god of greek philosophers than the christian one, and I never called it god, more the principle or the law.
I don't pretend it's something that has to be proven, I assume it as a philosophical notion of inherent value.

 

I am, in a sense, a pantheist. I believe god is infinity. I don't believe in an infinite god, and the distinction is important.

There is no God but infinity itself.

It is not an intelligence, it is not watching us, it doesn't feel, think, approve or judge, it exists only in the abstract.

Life exists only because it is possible.

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

Infinity plus possibility is the prime mover of existence.

If life is possible, then give enough time, it will occur.

That concept is what god is, it is not a supreme being, not an intelligent designer, it exists only in the abstract.

Now, I personally endow this concept as a spiritual process, that the basis of life is a spiritual force that is driving it, and that spiritual force is infinity, itself.

But no, there is no personal god. Monotheism, to me, makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense to me is pantheism.

 

Can you take your "conscience comes from God" idea further and say that "consciousness" and God are the same? Have you ever heard of a concept
called "non-dualism"?

 

In a way, it is. All life comes from God. All living things have souls, which are a spark from God.

But self-awareness and sentience comes from the combination of a soul with a body and mind which is evolved to a certain point.

 

At this point I am finding the pantheism idea described by Patricio da Silva's post and the "non-dualism"
description to be the most logical

 

Sure, scientists have various religious beliefs. Why wouldn't they?

I don't believe that is even SLIGHTLY surprising - nor revealing of anything.

However, there isn't room for mixing religion and science. To be successful, religion gets set aside in science, as science has no possibility of addressing anything containing religion.

Every scientist is well aware that the sheer volume of what we DON'T know is unimaginable. So, I'm not sure what you mean by your last couple sentences.

In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by your "pompous ass" comment.

After all, Einstein wasn't a pompous ass for telling just about ALL OF PHYSICS throughout the entire world that they were just plain wrong. Sometimes, someone who is an expert and is adamant turns out to be right!

And there are pompous asses everywhere, so there's nothing weird about that, unfortunately.

 

I wasn't being as anti-scientist as you were reading my words to be, only critical of those who are so enthralled w/ how far we've come that they DON'T acknowledge how lacking our understanding remains. I do think, "scientists," are more prone to this overconfidence in whatever CURRENT science tells us, & dismissive of the reality (in a day-to-day sense, not in a broad, theoretical generalization) that new knowledge quite often doesn't, "build," upon what we already, "know," but, rather alters or completely changes what we thought we knew. This is an understandable, albeit frustrating, side-effect of humans being part of any institution: you get a lot of institutionalists who find that fierce adherence to the status quo is their most effective tool for personal power & advancement. This phenomenon is, of course, not limited to scientists. Nor did I intend to suggest that this applied to all scientists. A true scientific mind approaches all new knowledge in an unbiased way, & this is the manner, as I'd distinguished in my post, that GREAT scientists do things; it is the quality that allows them to make paradigm-shifting discoveries. But there are many in the science fields, as in all fields, who do not have greatness in them, & realize that fact. But when being a middle-manager is your topping-out point, as part of some scientific institution, there's a tendency to manifest a hyper-orthodox mentality, almost as a form of loyalty to your profession, which one hopes or expects to be rewarded.

I could give innumerable examples of what I'm talking about, if necessary, but it seems that would be a bit of a digression for this particular thread (which is not about science, per se)-- but my offer remains, if you ask.

Since, as I said above, one need not be an actual, "scientist," to look at things in the narrow-minded way they imagine to be, "scientific," let me just illustrate w/ one, hypothetical example. What do you think of astrology? There are a large number of people who consider themselves science-minded, who will answer that question w/ an immediate verdict of, "rubbish." Yet, nearly none of them will have done anything resembling a study of astrology themselves, nor read any research done on astrology, nor, honestly, really know much about it. To dismiss something, no matter how disreputable it might, at first glance, appear, IS NOT SCIENTIFIC! I am not saying I would expect you to research EVERYTHING; there isn't time, & some areas will appear far less promising than others. I AM saying, however, that someone who TRULY practices a scientific approach to life, & who knew nothing about the subject of astrology beyond having seen newspaper horoscopes, would answer the question, not with an AUTHORITATIVE, " It's a ridiculous sham, believed by the weak-minded," or some such, but more along the lines of, " I, personally, don't put any stock in it but I really don't know enough about it to render a verdict."

Now replace, "astrology," with, "fractals," and perhaps you can begin to appreciate my point, because quite a few scientists, initially, were unimpressed w/ these little pictures (some of the same scientists who now swear by them). My, "pompous ass," comment was specifically about those who,"feel they have to instruct the religious on how silly they're being, or who simply mock them," displaying this same, authoritative mentality about something that science cannot, at least as yet, render any verdict upon. But, when one makes science their de facto religion, being completely in the dark about something of such monumental import is pretty hard to swallow; unlike the religious, it is incompatible w/ their temperaments to accept the notion that, "God, only, knows (whether or not God exists)."

I saw an interview back in the earlier days of Stephen Colbert's, "The Colbert Report," w/ the author of a new book (non-fiction, supposedly), the gist of which was, "there is no such thing as god, and only an idiot would believe there is," or, at least, "certainly any intelligent person realizes this truth." I have no idea whether or not this person was an actual scientist but this intellectual vanity, besides being common, I think, w/in the scientific community, has been adopted by many non-professional, "scientific-" thinkers. These are those asses to whom I was referring.

In epilog, let me inform you, in case you are interested in knowing, that there is a book that conducted a scientific investigation of astrology. I don't recall the title or author but the person who wrote the book WAS experienced in statistical analysis, it is possibly the field in which he'd made his fortune (in the forward, he related being asked by friends-- who depicted him as a well-known European playboy-- WHY he decided to embark on this project). It shouldn't be too hard to research it, at a library, due to there being such a dearth of statistical analyses of astrology. He used data that had already been gathered (usually by governments, predominently European) to see if certain behaviors, such as criminality, athleticism, etc., could be be correlated w/ astrological birth- (sun-) signs, because, of course, random chance would not favor, in these huge pools of people, those who are born in certain months to be significantly over-represented in prisons or professional sports. Yet he found there was a DECIDED CONNECTION between these seemingly unrelated things. And he'd used the methods of a gold-standard statistical analysis.

Now, be careful jumping to conclusions: I did NOT say this proves that the principles of astrology are accurate. I believe I view things in the TRUE scientific manner, which is being open to & considering ALL possibilities. So, perhaps this analysis shows that the principles of statistical analysis, which science has ACCEPTED AS BEING FACT may, in truth, be flawed (like the, "science," of ballistics in law enforcement, for example). Or, it may show that there is something about the TIME or SEASON of the year that a person is born (or, possibly, even about the time at which they are conceived) which plays a part in the liklihood of developing certain character & physical traits, which has nothing to do w/ the stars, but is a function of our planet/biosphere's effect on us (as it may also affect animals born in different seasons) of which we've thus far been unaware. Or, maybe, it does give evidence of the astrological principle of macro-cosmic energy patterns; that is, NOT that the planets' movements, themselves, directly affect people, but that our lives are part of an interconnected system in which roilings on the universal scale are iterated w/in the universe on a smaller, micro-cosmic, or fractal scale. Unless there have been critical errors in the study-- and the author describes all the data used in close detail-- he has proven something that we have not thus far considered or given credence.

But you can't have it both ways: being scientific when you can accept the results and, when none of the options are satisfactory, simply dismissing the data. Yet that is what, over & again, many scientists & various sciences (as well as all the people who mimic the prevailing views of science) do. Again, I have examples at the ready, upon request, but I feel this is already too long.

 

You are arguing that the fact that science might advance is a justification for IGNORING the very best information we have today!!

And, science does NOT push for status quo.

EVERY scientist is dedicating their very career to pushing our understandinng forward.

Your argument is just an excuse for anti-science.

 

Would not ALL "morality" be considered man made concepts?
How could it not be so?

 

This isn't my field, but ...

Science has found a significant number of cases of social behavior of various species that qualifies under the definition of "moral".

I don't see any justification for writing off morality as a uniquely human construct.

 

Okay...but that makes your post below sound a bit off....

 

Please explain that.

I don't see ANY inconsistency at all.

If you can point one out, I'd certainly be interested.

 

"However, there isn't room for mixing religion and science. To be successful, religion gets set aside in science, as science has no possibility of addressing anything containing religion."
"Science has found a significant number of cases of social behavior of various species that qualifies under the definition of "moral""
The top statement seems to separate science and religion....the bottom one uses science to verify the "morals" of animals.
Are not morals a religious idea? Didn't they begin with the forbidden fruit story?

 

In a way, you are
doing the same thing I complained about: reading selectively & coming to your conclusion from just that partial information.

There is nothing at all, "anti-science," in my argument; it is only anti-conceited science. And, once again, the original post was not about, "Science," per se, at all: it was about an ATTITUDE indicative of many people, "of science," but which is also present in many non-scientists. To save us some time, here are quotes JUST from my last post, to which your reply supposedly applies:


"This phenomenon is, of course, not limited to scientists;"

"Nor did I intend to suggest that this applied to all scientists;"

"But there are many in the science fields, as in all fields, who do not have greatness in them, & realize that fact;"

"Since, as I said above, one need not be an actual, 'scientist,' to look at things in the narrow-minded way they imagine to be, "scientific..."

"I have no idea whether or not this person was an actual scientist but this intellectual vanity, besides being common, I think, w/in the scientific community, has been adopted by many non-professional, 'scientific-' thinkers;"


Now how about you show me my quote that says we shouldn't believe ANY scientific information or, as you put it, my attempt to justify, "IGNORING the best information we have today!!" Perhaps you could push your own understanding forward by hyphenating your name, to Will Readmore-Carefully. In the meantime, here are 3 more quotes from my post that I think sum up its REAL main ideas:


"To dismiss something, no matter how disreputable it might, at first glance, appear, IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!"

"... the TRUE scientific manner, which is being open to & considering ALL possibilities."

"But you can't have it both ways: being scientific when you can accept the results and, when none of the options are satisfactory, simply dismissing the data. Yet that is what, over & again, many scientists & various sciences (as well as all the people who mimic the prevailing views of science) do.


With which of those do you disagree? Do you feel it IS scientific to dismiss things w/o investigation, but nevertheless to make judgements about their validity, w/o any data to support those conclusions? Or do you merely believe no scientist ever has dismissed something, out of hand, just because it seemed ridiculous to them or because it was too contrary to the conventional view (proving that you haven't done your research)? If it's the latter, how would my simply asserting that doing these things isn't scientific, make my argument, "anti-science?" Just because my opinion disagrees with yours? That would be a pretty conceited attitude, on your part. Not to mention, an unscientific correlation of data.

But still, that would mean you must agree w/ my middle statement about being open to considering ALL possibilities. Therefore, if I can name times when science has disregarded possibilities that it considered absurd or otherwise unacceptable, you'll admit that you were mistaken & my argument is valid?

 

Yes, science is separate from religion (belief in anything supernatural, such as god, crystals, or whatever).

Science is focused on figuring out how this universe works. There is no way for science to address the supernatural. If one were to allow religion into science then science would be dead. Science is based on testing, and there is no way to test God or anything else that is supernatural.

Morals are a social idea.

We continue to develop our morals. I don't see a way to suggest they were handed to humans. We decide that maybe slavery isn't as good an idea as it is in the bible. We decide that slaughtering all the inhabitants of Jericho isn't a great way to obtain land. We moderate our understanding of "cruel and unusual punishment" as it was purposefully left without a definition in our constitution. We question the justice of capital punishment, we object to ethnic cleansing (but not by the Jewish state of Israel!), we learn that the love between people of the same sex is real, we start questioning why black lives don't seem to matter, etc.

I think the garden of eden allegory is deeper than your suggest. It points to a fundamental flaw in humans. It's far more than a story of punishment for lying or disobeying direct orders. What it talks about IS serious, but I don't believe it has to do with how humans should treat each other.

I think Matthew 25 is a stronger push toward morality if you are looking for that in the Bible. It hits me as stronger than just the golden rule. The golden rule has a gigantic hole in it.

 

The catch is that there does come a time when specific possibilities ARE rejected.

I don't have to stay open to flat earth, or to the notion that the average temperature of Earth isn't increasing.

I do/have kept up with scinetists such as Dr. J Curry who is somewhat of a contrarian - often called upon by right wing groups who think she rebuts mainstream climate science.

If someone posts some contrarian view of climate, I'd really like to see a serious indication of it's source. The catch is, if it is a personal claim that is contrary to the world wide view of climatology, I think it needs actual scientific support. That would be especially true if the proposition is that the whole field of climatology is fake, a conspiracy, not carried out in a scientific way, or whatever.

Otherwise I'm left comparing sources: the view of a poster on this board vs. pretty much all of science.

That's a tough beat and rightly so, isn't it?

 

Is that the best you can argue against, flat-Earth theory? Is that what you somehow got the idea I was saying (which would be pathetic, whether it was a lie or the truth), or were you just betraying your attitude of scientific-snobbery (whether or not you are, in fact, a scientist), that anything outside the realm of accepted science is on that level of something posted on a board by some anonymous schmuck? Guess what, genious, you just proved my point.

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with my post which, I remind you, was a reply to your post in which you claimed I was trying to justify an anti-scientific view, or some such rubbish.
My response post-- which was actually the 2nd one addressing your mis-insightful comments-- ended w/ a simple question. If my claims that science often mocks or disregards ideas not for valid scientific reasons but just out of blind defense of the status quo are the reason you charge me w/, "ignoring the best information we have available today (sounds, to me, an awful lot like a defense of the status quo)," and claim that all scientists dedicate their lives to pushing out from the status quo (more defecat-ion), and so, supposedly don't reject ideas, out of hand-- which is utterly different from your disingenuous, "cover," that, eventually, when something proves itself superior, science rejects the losing idea, the implied lie being that scientists are testing all these ideas or have sufficient cause before rejecting them-- then if I list ideas that turned out to ultimately be accepted by Science, but which were initially derided or ignored, to use your your term for an irresponsible act, then are you willing to admit-- as logic would dictate you should, unless your presence here is only meant to irritate-- that your indictment of me was mistaken (in leiu of the other thing I asked for, proof of your anti-science charge which, ironically enough, you also failed to give in your lame reply) and that, therefore, my argument was valid? If you cannot manage to address that simple question, that will be my final proof that my words to you are like pearls before swine, and that all you wish to do
is waste my time.

 

Boy, have I got something for you! I happened across a theory, that's apparently getting a lot of buzz, titled, "The Human Condition," by Jeremy Griffith, that's about the human capacity for,"good," &, "evil," and I thought, "Don't I know someone who's shown an interest in this?"

https://www.humancondition.com/human-condition/

 

@gabmux

Something wasn't working right & so I ended up just posting your post, with none of my reply-- I raced to at least get you the website before my editing time ran out. I wanted to add, though, that I couldn't get through the theory myself because it reminded me too much of one of those email ads which promises to share some, "secret (to staying slim, feeling young again, fixing this or that health problem, and so forth)," but then goes on for 20 minutes talking about how much it sucks to have the problem, how great it would be to set everything right, and all the things the host has tried in his search for the answer, while telling his life story so as to make you feel you know all the main characters-- the wife, the doctor, etc.-- and identify w/ the speaker who once stood where you are now, every so often interjecting that he's just about to share the secret, " but first..." and back to the formerly-mentioned subjects he goes.

But I don't mind, since I'm more interested in reading another theory of human behavior, to which that site referred, by E.O. Wilson, called his theory of, "Eusociality," which, from this other site' s brief summation, is probably not your cup of tea: genes are competitive & selfish and that's why we are (as well).

 

Great!!

 

Seems highly illogical for a scientist to put limits on what is "believable"...no matter what the category.
Perhaps it is good that you say "science isn't my field"

Yes that is also my suggestion below...

But I did not imply any of those things you have given me credit for...
all I said was this...

And I am not "looking" for morality in the Bible...that is simply one of the places it can be found...but probably not exclusively.
It refers to the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil".....
Isn't that what "morality" is based on?? The knowledge of good and evil??

 

That was not the only example I gave. And, it points out that there ARE cases where human knowledge has advanced enough to discredit the opposing view - NOT because of arrogance, but becuase of evidence.

Ignoring what we know today on the grounds that at some time in the future we may have a better answer is just plain STUPID.

This isn't arrogance. In our lives, we always make decisions on the best knowledge we have at the time.

How can you possibly reject such a logical step?

Please note that has nothing at all to do with science - it's simply the only logical direction in decision making, whatever area of human endeavor.

Assaulting scinece on the grounds that there is a current level of understanding makes no sense.

Operating on notions of how this universe works when those notions don't match the understanding that humans have developed so far simply doesn't make sense.

And, that is not even slightly mitigated by the fact that we all work to increase understanding in all walks of life.


Why are you so wound up about assaulting science and scientists - evern resorting to ad hom? How else to you propose that we learn about how this universe works? Why should we make important decisions based on ideas that don't match our current understanding of how this universe works?

 

You know what, Will Readmore? I'm going to take the most generous interpretation possible of you, being that you must have a learning disability of some kind. I never said anything like what you repeatedly misrepresent me as having said. And since you are apparently are unable to cite specific quotes to back up your bizarre interpretations--

Now how about you show me my quote that says we shouldn't believe ANY scientific information or, as you put it, my attempt to justify, "IGNORING the best information we have today!!"--


I see no point in trying to continue this, "dialog," in which your half is a monolog that DOES NOT RESPOND to the things I say, as is typical in a conversation (if you can take my word for THAT). OF COURSE we should follow our best information at the time, not believe things unsupported by any evidence; I guess it would be pointless for me to ask, once more, where you got the idea that I DIDN'T agree w/ that very basic concept. I repeatedly, in as clear terms as I could, spelled it out for you that I was referring to the UNscientific attitude, held by many scientists & non-scientists alike, that judgements are possible withOUT information. Our, "best information," comes from INVESTIGATION. So if science refuses to look at evidence & ideas presented to it, fails to even attempt to verify or corroborate or reproduce results, then it is DISHONEST to represent those unaccepted ideas as crackpot or weak. But I've tried explaining this to you numerous times &, for some reason, lose you on this concept every time.

I think-- for anyone else reading-- this is a clear example of limiting of one's functional intelligence through one's processing information through a highly-prejudiced perspective: instead of hearing what is actually said, you hear what you ASSUME is being said leading, naturally, to faulty understandings. For anyone who can appreciate the irony, this has been my complaint against science all along which, after several back & forths between us, Will Readmore is still unable to grasp but, very possibly, this is NOT because he is truly an idiot, only that he makes himself one through his prejudicially-warped misinterpretations of things.(To wit

So you continue to talk of outdated scientific beliefs about the world being flat, & about unsupported, contrarian views against well-documented scientific phenomena like global warming, while I have always been speaking, wherever it's come up in this thread, about institutional, and CONstitutional, biases (both within & outside of the scientific community), which lead to a prima facie rejection of ideas. The philosopher Schopenhauer put it this way: "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being SELF-EVIDENT." Later on, George Bernard Shaw (in Annajatska) expressed the same idea: "All great truths begin as BLASPHEMIES." So my position sits in good company.

Examples of what I mean are Barry J Marshall, after discovering it was a bacteria which caused stomach ulcers, being RIDICULED by the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT of the mid 1980s, which KNEW for certain that no bacteria could w/stand the stomach's acidic environment for very long. In 2005, however, he & Robin Warren rec'd a Nobel Prize for their discovery of H. pylori's role, but not before, in order to prove his theory to the overly-sure of themselves medical scientists, Marshall, famously, swallowed a petri-dish worth of dangerous bacteria. Said Marshall, "Everyone was against me, but I knew I was right." I don't think, to be taken seriously, that should have been necessary; and it wouldn't have been, if the experts of the medical community had been open-minded.

I have been speaking of something, I've now just learned, that's been so well-observed, it has its own name, "The Semmelweis Reflex," meaning a knee-jerk reflex to reject new evidence contradicting established norms:


The first progress combatting
infection was made in 1847 by the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis who noticed that medical students fresh from the dissecting room were causing excess maternal death compared to midwives. Semmelweis, despite ridicule and opposition, introduced compulsory hand-washing for everyone entering the maternal wards and was rewarded with a plunge in maternal and fetal deaths, however the ROYAL SOCIETY DISMISSED HIS ADVICE.


The above paragraph comes from wikipedia's, "History of Surgery," page. For any interested in more on Semmelweis, I'm providing a link to the article, The Dirty History of Doctors
http://www.methodquarterly.com/2014/11/han

Though I'd had more to say, I'm going to wash my hands of this conversation, at this point. Maybe I'll finish later (but don't bank on it).

 

What is your personal religious ideology

While it isn't for me, I wholeheartedly approve of religion. It is the most effective arbiter of morality in every culture. My preference would be for religions that support a moral compass the supports peace in society.