This talk that I heard a couple of weeks ago is a good springboard for a discussion. I wasn't sure whether to put it here, on Philosophy, or on the General Faiths pages - please feel free to move it Mods.
Daniel asks several questions here, particularly, "Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism?", "What is truth?" and "What is science?"
In the 19thC, mathematics, metaphysics and theology were all included in what was termed "science".
[url]“Evolution, revolution: Exploring science and religion/spirituality”[/url] by Daniel Scott PhD
Do you think evolution is an argument for atheism? This lecture argues that not only did Darwin believe in God, but today we can intelligently understand the nature of God without pushing aside scientific discoveries. Daniel looks beyond the popular evolution vs. creationism debate and explores the nature of God as a scientific reality.
About the speaker .. from theoretical physicist to practical Christian.
As a young teenager, Daniel Scott became fascinated with theoretical physics. He went on to spend seven years at Cambridge University studying mathematics and mathematical physics. During this time he gained a basic working knowledge of quantum theory and relativity theory, became a published mathematician, and earned a PhD in an abstract branch of mathematical physics. However, by the time he had finished his PhD, his desire to be a physicist had been superseded by a growing interest in scientific metaphysics. He explains that it was his desire to find answers to the big questions of “Life, the universe and everything!” that had sparked his interest in fundamental physics, but that he came to realize that the deepest answers weren’t to be found in mathematics or physics.
On the other hand, whilst at university he had been continuing his spiritual study, and it was during this time that he first glimpsed that Christian Science could be taken seriously as science. This led to a sharp turn in career plans: from theoretical physicist to practical Christian.
[DLMURL] http://cshealer.co.uk/about/dscott/ [/DLMURL]
Judy
If personal experience is strong evidence, then whose personal experience do we trust?
I'd suggest we trust our own.
My life experiences have led me to the understanding I have today and though those experiences have often been extraordinary I seldom share them. They are exactly as you say, only anecdotes to anyone else.
I've read a number of books which explain how the mind can experience and believe something is real, irrespective of the truth of the actual thing...
Even your belief in the non-existence of God? Perhaps you have a problem with the name 'God'? I know it has associations that some people find off-putting. Perhaps we should refer to the Transcendental Reality instead?
I used the Christianity/Judaism dilemma as an example to illustrate a point. You could apply it to anything.... Look at the wide variety of religious and spiritual belief around the world. It would be madness to suggest that they are all true. A large majority of them are mutually exclusive...
I agree that not all religious writing can be literally true, but that's not the same as denying the truth that exists behind every shade of spiritual belief.
There are numerous arguments which explain why someone does not believe in god.
It usually seems to boil down to the fact that we perceive the world through our material senses and what our senses perceive is then analysed by the mind.
If, for the sake of argument, all that we perceive is a creation of the Transcendental Reality then how can the mind, a small part of the creation, comprehend the entirety? A transcendental means would be necessary. The Catch 22 for the mind focussed on the material manifestation is that a Transcendental Reality cannot be conceived of, and therefore by its reasoning, cannot be perceived.
Returning to the original topic, evolution provides an explanation for how the world could come about by entirely natural means.
Do you believe that the Transcendental Reality cannot order things by 'natural means'? A great saint in India once said that "Not a leaf falls from a tree that God does not know of". I once told this to an agnostic friend of mine who remarked, "He can't know of every leaf." We mistake the limits of our vision for the limits of the Universe.
The idea of god is almost always used as an explanation for things we cannot explain. This argument is more often called the "god of the gaps". People explain things like morality, the beginning of time, what happens after death, by invoking god...
...you forgot Love.
Whatever their motivation, I think this tendency stems from the need to be certain about things.
The atheists I know are as guilty of this as any religious fundamentalist.
There is something called the "burden of proof". It's the idea that whoever makes the positive claim is required to provide proof supporting his/her claim.
The proof can be provided through the way the individual applies their spiritual principles in their daily life. I have been deeply inspired by many men and women who have radiated that proof.
if I claimed that santa claus existed, would it be more reasonable for you to prove to me that he didn't exist, or for me to prove to you that he did?
Why should we do either? I'd be very interested to know why you thought he existed. Wouldn't that be the scientific approach?
To prove that santa claus didn't exist, you would have to evaluate the entire universe, and even then allow for the fact that maybe you missed him... A much more reasonable approach would be to simply assume from the fact that there is no evidence that anyone has yet found of his existence, that he therefore does not exist.
You say 'yet'.
Lack of evidence does not prove the non-existence of a thing, though I'd disagree with you when you say no-one has found evidence. The thing is we've each got to find it for ourselves and it's been found by lots of people throughout history.
That you don't see the evidence might just mean you've been looking in the wrong places, or that you've been using the tools. A caveman had no 'evidence' of electricity, but he did see lightning.
The burden of proof would rightly rest of me, and I would have to prove to you (provide evidence) that he existed... If I couldn't do that, then you would rightly remain a non-believer.
I wouldn't call myself a non-believer. I'd be intrigued by what gave you certainty.
Put another way, if I told you that I'd personally experienced santa claus, or I personally experienced the god that was a frog that lived in the son, would you expect my testimony as truth?
It would be your truth.
You're already an atheist in regard to all the gods/religions you don't believe in...
What Gods/religions do I not believe in? You obviously haven't read what I've posted on the philosophy of Sanathana Dharma...
As different streams coming from various sources ultimately flow into one ocean, so do the many religions of the world, emerging from innumerable sources, at long last mingle in the great ocean of love.
This truth is in the very atmosphere; it exists eternally, in every human heart. It only waits to be unfolded.
If you go to the source, you will find that the same truth lies beneath all religions.
- Swami Prabhavananda
You say that you question your attitudes when it comes to religion, that's admirable, and the sign of a spiritual aspirant, Johnny. You don't need to sign up to any particular set of beliefs in order to interact with the Transcendental Reality, just keep asking the questions.
It would be your truth.
That right there sums up your approach.
I can appreciate the idea and I understand the relevance of this relative truth, but I find it loses meaning if we're talking about facts...
Of course, our understanding has it's limitations and I certainly don't claim to have any answers. What I aspire to do is take as little on faith as possible. Perhaps this seems rather silly, though hear my reasons first. I look around and I see many people using faith as justification for many stupid and dumb ideas. Some of them are intelligent, and some of them are plain idiots. But the vast majority of them fail to take an objective look at their belief, and are consequently falling for something of a lie. Unless I can clearly see why something is true, I have trouble believing it. Relying on my own or someone else's personal experience is typically unreliable, as demonstrated by the vast array of different experiences that people have.
But back to the original point. If you are arguing from the your truth, my truth, there is no way we are going to agree. I've had these conversations with people before, and this relative/absolute truth is a fundamental basis of either argument. If we can't agree on this, then there's no way we are going to agree on the rest.
The atheists I know are as guilty of this as any religious fundamentalist.
Absolutely! Too often atheism descends into just another dogmatic belief system... But like I said, I aspire to be different.
I admit that I don't have the answers, and that I may even be wrong, but up until now I have not found anything that leads me to believe in god. In actual fact, the more I've read the more I've become convinced that god does not exist.
Despite this, I tend to avoid conversations about it. This is the first in a long time. I welcome the discussion, but I find it rather neverending....
The reason why I find your point of view hard to accept is the nature of this thread... "Is evolution an argument for atheism?"
Evolution is not a matter of your truth/my truth - rather, it is a matter of scientific fact. Accepting the nature of evolution means accepting the scientific (read, rational) method of discovering the truth. And if that's the case, then you'd have to admit that at times there is one truth, not one for each of us. For example, gravity exists on surface of earth, for both you and me.
If, for the sake of argument, all that we perceive is a creation of the Transcendental Reality then how can the mind, a small part of the creation, comprehend the entirety? A transcendental means would be necessary. The Catch 22 for the mind focussed on the material manifestation is that a Transcendental Reality cannot be conceived of, and therefore by its reasoning, cannot be perceived.
I'll even admit that there are countless things that we are still to learn about the world... including the nature of consciousness and spirituality. However, the fact that we don't understand it yet does not mean that therefore that god exists. It simply means that we don't understand it.
I agree that not all religious writing can be literally true, but that's not the same as denying the truth that exists behind every shade of spiritual belief.
Well said, but the evidence of some truth shared throughout religions does not then mean that god exists.
Even your belief in the non-existence of God? Perhaps you have a problem with the name 'God'? I know it has associations that some people find off-putting. Perhaps we should refer to the Transcendental Reality instead?
God is simply the most common word... this comes back to definitions.
I don't believe in a personal god that interacts with the world on a regular basis, etc etc etc.... a person who did would be called a "theist" hence the "a-theist".
In regards to some sort of shared consciousness, I'm undecided. I'm highly skeptical of the idea though, and will be until some sort of actual evidence arises. If you have some, show me.
However, you may notice that the looser we get with our definition of god/spirituality, the "easier" it is to "prove"..... The more accurate of a definition, the more sure we can be of whatever reality there is.
Evolution is not a matter of your truth/my truth - rather, it is a matter of scientific fact. Accepting the nature of evolution means accepting the scientific (read, rational) method of discovering the truth. And if that's the case, then you'd have to admit that at times there is one truth, not one for each of us. For example, gravity exists on surface of earth, for both you and me.
I always find these arguments entertaining. People trying to prove or disprove God to each other. Everyone believes what they want to believe, so why try to change it? It is this trying to change what people believe that leads to so much suffering in the world.
To answer your fact of Evolution - to me, Evolution is God's mechanism of creation and maintenance of life on Earth. So your argument is rather meaningless to me.
I always find these arguments entertaining. People trying to prove or disprove God to each other. Everyone believes what they want to believe, so why try to change it? It is this trying to change what people believe that leads to so much suffering in the world.
To answer your fact of Evolution - to me, Evolution is God's mechanism of creation and maintenance of life on Earth. So your argument is rather meaningless to me.
Sure, I completely agree.
However, I enjoy discussing it and seeing where it goes (pretty much always no where) and find I can learn new things.
So long as it doesn't get personal, or super-argumentative, I actually find the discussions interesting. And my motive isn't to change anyone else's mind either. I find the best way to flesh out new ideas and learn their strengths and weaknesses is to discuss them with others. If I learn a few things, then it's been a success 😀
In your case of believing evolution being god's mechanism, the argument is meaningless. Evolution then is simply another reason to believe...
Since that was the thread topic, I've tried to avoid other arguments against the existence of god, though I will say that there are many. You're probably aware of most of them, so there's no point getting into them here.
I don't have a lot of time to give a long reply, but I agree with Scott anyway, so maybe it's just as well.
Relying on my own or someone else's personal experience is typically unreliable...the more I've read the more I've become convinced that god does not exist.
You don't trust your own experiences, and you don't trust anyone else's, so why do you trust the authors of those books you've read? Finding the meaning of life for most of us is like trying to analyse a dream whilst dreaming the dream. The true teachers are the ones who've woken up from it.
In your case of believing evolution being god's mechanism, the argument is meaningless. Evolution then is simply another reason to believe...
I'm not sure why that is meaningless. The scriptures of India had described physical and spiritual evolution thousands of years before western observers picked up on the idea.
Hello Johnny,
As the originator of this thread, I just wanted to say that I admire the polite, respectful, non-confrontational, measured and considered way you respond to posts, which makes a pleasant change from someone on here earlier! 😀
I'm not going to try to debate about why I know God exists, but to simply say, that I have had so much proof in my life of the existance a a higher power than material law, that it would be impossible to deny it.
On this thread, up to post 5, there are 4 of the experiences I had when I was a member of cabin crew for an international airline:
Safe Flight
And this one has many healings and other experiences (including mine, starting with a woman dying of a rattlesnake bite)
Healings
Why not have a look? You have nothing to lose (but a little time)
Here is an experience I've copied which illustrates what I'm talking about:
A young woman was suffering from depression, reliant of Speed and felt that her only choice was hard drugs or suicide. She spoke one day to the director of the ballet school she went to and this woman gave her Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy telling her that she might enjoy reading it:
Not wanting to offend her, I took it, but I was insulted by this offer of religion, which to me seemed a crutch for people too weak to stand on their own feet.…it occurred to me that I could help this woman by pointing out to her that religion, especially Christian Science, had no practical value…. I decided to read the book as a source of good ammunition.”
She spent several weeks arguing with the ballet director, feeling she could knock the props from under hand, but each time received a satisfactory answer. Then:
“One day … I was running down the stairs of my apartment building and scraped my hand severely on the brick wall. I remember standing on the stairs, looking at my bleeding and bruised hand and thinking: Of course Christian Science doesn’t work, but if it did and I were a Christian Scientist, what would I do right now? Then I thought: …. it would be simple, because Christian Science teaches that God is good and is all-presence, so all has to be good, and there is nothing outside of good. That was all there was to it. When I looked at my hand there wasn’t a mark on it. I was awestruck because I didn’t understand what had happened. But for the first time in my life I felt the presence of something greater than myself and knew that somehow I could learn to utilize this healing power.”
(D. Huebsch from Living Christian Science: Fourteen Lives)
I have often read of instantaneous healings of injuries, but never believed I'd witness one with my own eyes until my dog was attacked by another and a large hole was left under his ear, with matted blood. He wouldn't let me clean it up after the first attempt, so I left it and talked to him about his true spiritual status. I didn't look at it again. I told my husband about it later and he wanted to see it. It wasn't there. I looked and looked, but all skin and hair and everything was filled in. Had it not been for the blood-stained cotton wool in the bin I would have thought it was just a dream.
Here is just one of thousands of articles including an experience that cannot be explained by the usual reasonings:
[url]Existence - the eternal now[/url]
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]For example, one evening we had a pot of peanut oil heating to cook meat and seafood for a family fondue dinner. About halfway through dinner, a family member tripped over the electric cord attached to the pot, and it started to slide off the table. Quickly, without thinking, I reached over and grabbed the pot, immersing my hand in the boiling oil...
Food for thought, I hope! 🙂
Love and peace,
Judy
I don't have a lot of time to give a long reply, but I agree with Scott anyway, so maybe it's just as well. You don't trust your own experiences, and you don't trust anyone else's, so why do you trust the authors of those books you've read? Finding the meaning of life for most of us is like trying to analyse a dream whilst dreaming the dream. The true teachers are the ones who've woken up from it.
I use the phrase "personal experience" to mean that which I detect with my five senses, that is, my immediate personal experience of the world.
Don't get me wrong - there is nothing bad about personal experience, and enjoying one's personal experience is fine. I only think it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to something as religion or spirituality.
When I read books, I'm not trusting the author's personal experience per say. Rather, I am evaluating their reasons for whatever they believe, and then using my own brain to figure out whether it's reasonable or not.
If I came to you and told you I could fly, you'd rightly ask for me to show you. It wouldn't be enough for me to just say I'd experienced flight before. I'd have to demonstrate it. I'd have to provide empirical evidence to support my claim that I could fly.
And if I couldn't provide hard evidence (that which you or anyone else could observe) it would be more reasonable to assume that I was delusional.
Or to use another example (not the best parallel I know), think of an insane asylum. Walk in there and you can meet loads of people who all claim "personal experience" of various entities, things, beings, spirits, and so on.
Now is it more reasonable to accept all of these beliefs on face value, simply because someone has had "personal experience" of them? Or would it be better to evaluate the claims and see if any evidence could be found to support their theories? Obviously, it's the latter, and it's the reason we have asylums.
If "personal experience" was really a reliable indicator of truth, we'd have no need for mental asylums (no offense intended with the parallel).
HOWEVER
Just because personal experience is not a reliable indicator of truth, does not therefore mean that the experience did not happen. I can accept the idea that the person had their own personal experience of whatever. I can accept that they actually "saw", "felt", "heard", whatever or whoever. But an adequate explanation of this phenomena can be found in neuroscience and understanding how the brain acts to interpret reality.
Even if you discount this theory and therefore "don't exactly know" what happened when you or someone else experienced, it only means that you don't know. You can guess and wonder, but if you don't know, you don't know.
I'm not sure why that is meaningless.
If you can accept evolution is a fact, and believe it is the reason life exists here on earth, why add unnecessary conclusions? This is the principle of Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation is almost always right.
If evolution is satisfactory, then leave it at that. Add god or spirituality into it and it gets a whole lot more complicated.
In my opinion, those who accept evolution yet still believe in god do so because they are uncomfortable without god, the certainty that the belief can provide and the very real feelings that accompany it.
Religious and spiritual belief can definitely have an actual physiological effect on the individual. However again, this only means that the feelings are real, not the thing that they might represent.
Hello Johnny,
As the originator of this thread, I just wanted to say that I admire the polite, respectful, non-confrontational, measured and considered way you respond to posts, which makes a pleasant change from someone on here earlier! 😀
Thanks for the feedback 🙂 I'm all too aware of how these conversations almost always become personal, rendering intelligent discussion impossible.
I'm not going to try to debate about why I know God exists, but to simply say, that I have had so much proof in my life of the existance a a higher power than material law, that it would be impossible to deny it.
Why not have a look? You have nothing to lose (but a little time)
I had a read and unfortunately (as you probably expected ;)) I'm not convinced. All the "proof" you cite is anecdotal - it is all personal experience. My post before this explains my opinion of personal experience.
Here is an experience I've copied which illustrates what I'm talking about:
I have often read of instantaneous healings of injuries, but never believed I'd witness one with my own eyes until my dog was attacked by another and a large hole was left under his ear, with matted blood. He wouldn't let me clean it up after the first attempt, so I left it and talked to him about his true spiritual status. I didn't look at it again. I told my husband about it later and he wanted to see it. It wasn't there. I looked and looked, but all skin and hair and everything was filled in. Had it not been for the blood-stained cotton wool in the bin I would have thought it was just a dream.
Ok, firstly, I'm well aware that this and plenty of other things have happened that have no immediately understandable cause. Whether we call them miracles, accidents or coincidences, I will not deny that they do happen.
The problem I do have though, is that I think people get carried away whenever something like this happens. Typically, people start making assumptions about the cause/s, such as god, spirits, angels, magic, and so on.
I'll explain what I mean relevant to the story above, and the problems I have with it.
Firstly, assuming that the "miracle" actually did happen and there was no known cause, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that we don't know what did it. That is, the hole healed with no known cause.
Secondly, any "miracle" is only called a "miracle" because it flies in the face of common scientific theory. Therefore, another reasonable explanation would be that the young woman got it wrong, either there was no hole in the first place, or that it was on the other ear.
Basically I'm saying that the only things we can "know" or "prove" are those things which have empirical evidence supporting them. If anything happens and there is no known explanation, as well as a complete lack of evidence, then it means that we don't know.
Postulating a god or any other supernatural entity, is at best a guess, and at worst, completely delusional and wishful thinking.
Central to this whole argument, is that a "lack of evidence" is not "evidence of supernatural intervention". A "lack of evidence" is simply that, "a lack of evidence".
If the evidence doesn’t fit the model...
Hi Johnny,
I thought you'd vanished into thin air! 😉 Thanks for having the grace to read through and respond so eloquently, but as you may have guessed, I'm not leaving it there. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but just to get you to consider this topic from another perspective. By the way, it was my dog and I thoroughly searched and searched under both ears for the large hole that had been there just hours before! 🙂
Basically I'm saying that the only things we can "know" or "prove" are those things which have empirical evidence supporting them. If anything happens and there is no known explanation, as well as a complete lack of evidence, then it means that we don't know.
Postulating a god or any other supernatural entity, is at best a guess, and at worst, completely delusional and wishful thinking.
Central to this whole argument, is that a "lack of evidence" is not "evidence of supernatural intervention". A "lack of evidence" is simply that, "a lack of evidence".
OK, in Christian Science, we do not consider the way that harmony - in bodies, weather, relationships, supply, etc - is restored after applying specific spiritual laws as "miracles" but just the repeatable, practical operative result of a science, which, like mathematics, exists in the metaphysical realm alone. We see God (another name for Good) as an immutable, infinite divine Principle - as Love Itself, Life Itself, Truth Itself, the Source of all intelligence, harmony, beauty, activity creativity etc.
We don't see God as some puppeteer, sitting up there, pulling strings, deciding to intervene in one case and not in the other. It's not about intervention, it's like you find a mathematical mistake on the blackboard, rub it out, put the correct answer there and after that, all of your calculations work.
In the published results of a study, “An Empirical Analysis of Medical Evidence in Christian Science Testimonies of Healing 1969-1988” there is part of a reply to a letter from a doctor who complains that our healings do not fit a “mechanistic and reductionistic model of health.” (I would hope not!!) The reply says however that our record of healings “constitute evidence that can and should be taken seriously by rational people…If the evidence doesn’t fit the model, the need is to re-examine the model, not arbitrarily deny the evidence!”
In the study they discuss two healings. One of a lady who had given vague medical details in her testimony published in the CS magazine (which are always written from the spiritual perspective) She stated that a scheduled coronary artery operation had been cancelled abruptly because of a blood condition. The lady had been told that she would be a life-long invalid because of this serious condition, but there was no specific mention of either the name of the heart or blood condition.
When she turned to Christian Science she was healed within a week and subsequent physical examination confirmed the healing to “the amazement of the doctor”
The article goes on:
“The large medical gaps in this anecdotal account illustrates precisely what medical readers have criticized in the Christian Science testimonies, yet the key question for the researcher is not how such a healing is described but what actually occurred – the case history behind the anecdote. In this instance, when contacted for further details on her experience …the testifier provided a lengthy affidavit detailing her examination and treatment by at least six different physicians in three hospitals and two clinics over a period of three years. Whether or not “amazement” accurately describes the last doctor’s state or mind on finding her unexpectedly healed, he was sufficiently surprised that he sent for her records from Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia and after reviewing them called her in for another examination. Over a decade later the testifier obtained these records herself, at the request of the Christian Science church. The hospital diagnosis was coronary artery disease with obstruction of the right coronary artery, Meniere’s disease, hyperthyroidism, and an undetermined blood disorder possibly “due to one of the medications that the patient was on.”
The woman’s condition had been so serious that she had to stay in bed as even taking a shower would bring on chest pains. She had found a Science and Health among her books a few months earlier and had begun reading it, but had not turned completely to God for healing until told that her scheduled coronary artery transplant had been cancelled due to a blood-clotting problem. She was bleeding under the skin and was told to urgently see a haematologist. However, when the specialist he recommended was unable to see her for two weeks “I decided not to continue with medical treatment at all, but to turn wholly in prayer in Christian Science for the healing. I ceased taking all medication from that point on………I did not have a Christian Science practitioner praying for me , but held to all that I had been learning through reading the Bible and Science and Health in the last few months. On the fourth day I got up, vacuumed the carpets and did housework for the first time in two years. My strength returned and the black and blue blotches all cleared up with another few days. I found I could eat, move around and exert myself without pain. I never had another chest pain from that day on.” (Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, R. Peel pages 69-73)
She was also healed of the thyroid condition at the same time. So much for dismissing such healings as “merely anecdotal”.
Also in the Empirical Analysis of Medical Evidence mentioned above is this:
“In still other cases, the actual course of the healings described makes traditional explanatory labels such as natural “remission” virtually meaningless. In one Australian’s healing of multiple sclerosis, the testifier turned to Christian Science after his condition had steadily deteriorated over a period of two-and-a-half-years. He was completely paralyzed, nearly blind, could not speak or feed himself, and one leg had become shorter than the other. His condition stabilized immediately under prayer in Christian Science and within several weeks began to improve gradually but steadily. He was cared for in a home for Christian Scientists needing special nursing help. In eight months he was able to walk and not long thereafter relinquished the invalid pension he had been receiving.”
…If the evidence doesn’t fit the model, the need is to re-examine the model, not arbitrarily deny the evidence!”
I rest my case!
Judy
Judy
Central to this whole argument, is that a "lack of evidence" is not "evidence of supernatural intervention". A "lack of evidence" is simply that, "a lack of evidence".
I agree with you, Johnny, that is central to the whole argument. If you really want evidence that convinces you, then why not challenge God to provide it for you? It's what I did. 🙂
I thought you'd vanished into thin air!
I know! I was busy working and sorting a few things out. But I thought I'd drop in and see how the conversation was doing 😀
By the way, it was my dog and I thoroughly searched and searched under both ears for the large hole that had been there just hours before! 🙂
Wow, ok... fair enough. However, I stand by what I said. Even if there was no apparent explanation of how the ear could have healed, that does not therefore mean that god or a spirit did it. The lack of a plausible explanation only tells us that there are gaps in our knowledge, which I readily admit.
But to fill those gaps with assumptions and guesses is wrong in my opinion.
If the evidence doesn’t fit the model, the need is to re-examine the model, not arbitrarily deny the evidence!”
Absolutely, I completely agree!
However, what we seem to be talking about here is rather a lack of evidence or apparent explanation. As I just mentioned, that only shows that we have gaps in our knowledge, and that like you said we may need to re-examine the model.
In my opinion, the best position to take now would be to be open to new explanations, but to accept nothing as truth or fact unless proper evidence was provided.
I think that to say "god did it" is an unsubstantiated jump which cannot be properly backed up.
I don't deny that any of these things (mysterious healings, etc) have happened and do happen. And I recognise that there are gaps in our knowledge about how they might have come about. I'm with you up until there.
Past that, I can only speculate about what may have caused any of it to happen. All I can really know is that I really don't know.
Now since there is no actual evidence of what may have done it, it is more reasonable to say that it happened in an entirely natural way, and that one day science will understand the mechanics behind it.
This is the burden of proof. It's the idea that the person with the positive claim (god exists) must support it with evidence. If no evidence is forthcoming, then a natural explanation is more plausible and more reasonable.
I agree with you, Johnny, that is central to the whole argument. If you really want evidence that convinces you, then why not challenge God to provide it for you? It's what I did. 🙂
I grew up going to church and was heavily involved in all sorts of stuff. Most people expected me to become some sort of leader, such as a pastor and do great things for god. Prior to abandoning my belief, I spent a long time asking for just that, some sort evidence, proof, or at least a reason that would satisfy me to believe.
Evidently, he never came though 😉
Evidently, he never came though 😉
Are you sure about that, Johnny? It takes two to tango.
I get the impression that you could dissect any experience right out of existence. 🙂
Hey Johnny,
Have a look at post 14 in and you'll read an account of someone who asked for proof - I think he got more than he bargained for, but then, why shouldn't the infinite have a sense of humour? 😀
To me, these moments when harmony is restored (or even found for the first time), are when we yield our human thinking up to the one divine Mind. It's a letting go and connecting to what IS and WHO WE ARE - to my understanding the AM of the one I.
Judy
Are you sure about that, Johnny? It takes two to tango.
I get the impression that you could dissect any experience right out of existence. 🙂
Haha, so I've wondered at times before.
If I happened to have a supernatural experience, I would first look for a scientific explanation of why I had seen/heard/experienced what I had. If no explanation was forthcoming, I would then try to guess the cause, but with with no expectation that I could necessarily find an answer.
I would see the experience as real in and of itself, but not necessarily representative of truth. Much like the matrix, the experience could be real in the sense that various electrical signals were passing through my brain. But rather than the signals actually representing reality, they simply represent an experience that my brain went though.
I feel like I'm going in circles here, but do you know what I mean?
Hey Johnny,
Have a look at post 14 in and you'll read an account of someone who asked for proof - I think he got more than he bargained for, but then, why shouldn't the infinite have a sense of humour? 😀
I'm curious, why do these things happen only in circumstances when no one is around to actually study it? Why can't the result be repeated in a laboratory?
Of course, I know what you'll say.
However, I'd say that if the only time these things happen is in situations where the actual evidence is shaky at best, I'd conclude that there's no real evidence at all, and hence no supernatural happening.
Belief what you like, but I think it's wishful thinking.
To me, these moments when harmony is restored (or even found for the first time), are when we yield our human thinking up to the one divine Mind. It's a letting go and connecting to what IS and WHO WE ARE - to my understanding the AM of the one I.
What does that even mean? Sorry, but so often, religious/spiritual talk descends into pure fluff.
I know what you're trying to say, and I don't deny that there is a wide range of powerful experiences that we can have. And for these experiences we may not have proper explanations, but that does not mean that "god did it". Again, wishful thinking to me.
Also, I did some reading into Christian Science.
They're recieved some bad publicity in the past regarding children dying due to their parents refusing medical care because of their belief in god. It is this insanity that almost always accompanies religion that I am against.
And if your god was so good, then why did these kids die?
Being a Christian scientist yourself, assuming you have kids and one of them were sick, what would you do? Would you wait till the absolute very end before seeking proper medical help? Would you refuse your kids' right to proper medical attention on the basis of your belief?
And if you take issue to the fact that western medical science has failed many times, I would remind you of the fact that western medical science does not claim to be divine, nor religious, nor absolute.
I find it interesting true how religions change as society evolves. I'm sure you would probably see a doctor as well as pray if your child was sick, but that is a modern development as far as I know, and changed only due to negative public attention surrounding this issue.
It reminds me of my days at church when different people were preaching different things. None of them ever care to ponder the fact that the religion they believe in has gone through changes as society changes. And all too often religion is on the tail-end of change, and holds the world back. This has been true in science and social arenas (such as homosexuality).
would see the experience as real in and of itself, but not necessarily representative of truth. Much like the matrix, the experience could be real in the sense that various electrical signals were passing through my brain. But rather than the signals actually representing reality, they simply represent an experience that my brain went though.
I feel like I'm going in circles here, but do you know what I mean?
Yes, Johnny, it means you could dissect any experience right out of existence. 🙂
Yes, Johnny, it means you could dissect any experience right out of existence. 🙂
I think you misunderstand me.
I'm not trying to dissect any spiritual experience out of experience, rather I am trying to figure out what's true from what's not. If I have no standard by which to go, then I can be easily deceived or captured by a false experience.
It is my goal to be as open-minded as possible about things, but this does not mean that I will believe in anything that cannot be disproven.
For an good explanation of what open-mindedness means, especially when it comes to religion and spirituality, watch this video: It's about 10 mins and won't take long, but it should help you understand where I'm coming from.
I've had a look back at the start of the thread, found this, and thought it best to comment.
In my study of religion and spirituality, I try to understand exactly what I'm dealing with. I want to know exactly what I'm dismissing, and hence take pains to understand more than just one argument for or against it.
Often when it comes to atheism, many spiritual people are happy to dismiss it after hearing but one argument. And often, they don't even take the time to investigate the argument properly. On first hearing it, they are not convinced, see no reason to delve further (being comfortable in their religious belief) and proceed to dismiss it with very little rational thought on the matter.
When it comes to evolution, I'll admit that it isn't proof either way as to whether god exists or now. But it certainly gives a great explanation of how humans might have come to be, without invoking the supernatural. And if we could come about by natural means, why postulate a god anyway?
Yes quite. I might be wrong, but whenever I see him banging on about evolution, it appears that that is Richard Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God.
Judy
This quote is from post #7 of this thread.
Now, I can understand why you might think this and I realise you used the word "appear". However...
1) Did you delve further into the issue of why Dawkins doesn't believe in god? Or did you write him off after that?
2) How much research have you actually done on the criticisms of religion and spirituality?
3) How many arguments are you aware of for both positions, and have you made an informed decision when it comes to what you believe?
There are many arguments against the existence of god, some of which I've touched on in this thread. It certainly isn't based on evolution. Indeed, Religious scepticism existed long before than any scientific theory on evolution existed. These arguments include but are not limited to: the problem of evil, the issue of personal experience and the burden of proof.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that you've actually taken the time to investigate the issue. I think this because I was once there, and it's where most religious and spiritual people are at. Granted, there are the odd few who do take time to work through the issues surrounding their beliefs, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Instead, it's my hunch that you've gone with what feels right. You believe just because you know, and it makes sense to you. In the words of Morpheus, "What you know, you can't explain". You just believe/have faith/etc.
But if this is the case, then how can you be sure you're not wrong?
And if you're happy to be wrong, have you thought about what the cost might be?
In my discussions with people about religion and spirituality, it's never my goal to persuade them to believe what I believe.
I want to challenge people and what they believe, and I want to help them understand what they believe better. Sadly, I meet too many people who just believe whatever they feel like, "whatever feels right to them", but in my opinion that is stupidity and a utopian way of looking at the world.
I want to challenge people and what they believe, and I want to help them understand what they believe better. Sadly, I meet too many people who just believe whatever they feel like, "whatever feels right to them", but in my opinion that is stupidity and a utopian way of looking at the world.
This part really bothers me. The shear arrogance of it. Help people to better understand what they believe? And to label their beliefs as stupid just because you don't see it their way? Someone recently thanked you for your civility during this discourse. I see it as quietly insulting people in such a way that they don't know they've been insulted, while you secretly grin to yourself. Pretty clever, eh? Thanks but no thanks. I'm through playing.
Hi Scott,
It was me who thanked Johnny. 😀
Dear Johnny,
Let me state here and now that I believe in evolution as the way things work on a material level, but I also believe that there is a higher law and a higher power because I have proved it in my own life, again and again.
I have also thought and researched deeply into many aspects of religion, science, atheism, belief etc. I love having discussions with people about these topics. Please have a read of my thread "Richard Dawkins and "The Root of all Evil?"
Many atheists and agnostics are humble enough to say, (as you did earlier) "We don't know" but RD is as bigoted (and I hate to use the word) as any of the fundamentalist religionists he decries. He doesn't do science any justice, so I will protest. I respect everyone's right to their own opinions and conclusions, but my answers have come through demonstration.
I am talking of spiritual laws, which, when applied, enabled ours to be the only plane to land one day - the fog pulled back just before we landed, then closed in again. As we were taxiing out, it pulled back and the sight I saw when I went up to the flight deck to give the Captain the cabin checks I'll never forget - on either side of the runway, banks of fog, standing up like the description of the Red Sea parting.
Another time, we had warnings of such severe turbulence that the pilots in front of us could not even read their control panels. We went through exactly the same air space just minutes behind them, at the same altitude and it was like a mill pond - not even a ripple.
Someone I know of in Uganda, during the carnage there, was herded up for execution, with a group of his tribesmen. He too was a student of Christian Science and prayed the way we learn. The soldiers tried firing the rifles again and again and each time they jammed. Then they would shot them into the air and they worked. In the end they became so frightened as they felt it was the work of God and they let them go.
Then there was the young man whose engine exploded on his boat and he was in the water, repeatedly stung by jelly fish and being circled by sharks, about a mile offshore and no-one knew he was missing (or even that he was in his boat) until his mother sensed that something was wrong. After she contacted a Christian Science practitioner to pray about the situation, dolphins surrounded the young man and stayed with him all night, stopping the sharks from attacking, then a fisherman who was out with his family sensed that he had to go out to sea. his family thought he'd had a mental breakdown, but they rescued the young man and got him to hospital where the prognosis was grim. Within just a few hours he was out of there, all effects of the cold and jellyfish stings disappeared.
With respect Johnny, you could not have once been where I am now. If you'd had the practical proof of what a scientific understanding of God brings, you would never have left it. I'm not talking about a blind faith but of provable, practical, spiritual laws. I feel I'm like Peter here:
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6)
I gave you these links in an earlier thread. Please read them and then we can know for sure whether you ever experienced anything like these so could actually understand where I'm coming from:
Flight
On this thread, up to post 5, there are 4 of the experiences I had when I was a member of cabin crew for an international airline (including the two I briefly mention above):
And this one has many healings and other experiences (including mine), starting with a woman dying of a rattlesnake bite and including the one I mentioned earlier about Ross who was drowning in a car with the door and windows jammed shut. There's also the First Officer from the Titanic who was pulled under by the ship...
Healings
Why not have a look? You have nothing to lose (but a little time)
Judy 🙂
Let me state here and now that I believe in evolution as the way things work on a material level, but I also believe that there is a higher law and a higher power because I have proved it in my own life, again and again.
That puts it into a nutshell for me. If there is a Higher Power (or Powers...) their influence upon this world is going to manifest through what are eventually material means. Evolution could easily be God's way of working some things out.
Then again, another perspective is that the world is so magical, so marvellous, so wonderful, and all the workings of it, that we should be seeing everything (apart from human ill-doing) as a miracle from above. Perhaps as very young infants, we do. But as with anything in life, something repeated becomes taken for granted (such as the sunrise, or love, or how our orbit is so perfectly placed that it continues, and just at the right distance for life to survive, etc, etc). After a few years, surrounded by miracles, including the miracle of our own consciousness, as all we perceive is the material world (yet there are IMHO higher influences everywhere), we don't see the wood for the trees.
In such a world of the spiritually blind, it's easy not to realise that there's such a thing as spiritual sight. The blind lead the blind, and "there is no God".
I think many, many people don't believe in 'God' because they've been raised to think there's only a very limited perspective of what 'God' might be. Opening to many more perspectives is a great help (for example, in my youth I found it a real insight to read of agnostics who'd had incredibly profound mystical experiences - then had my own). 'God' turned out to be a host of unbelievable powers, and that was just a glimpse. The "man with a white beard in the clouds" is, methinks, subtly still too present in our culture.
V
Good post V.
I had a good discussion a few weeks ago with someone who called himself an atheist, but who had a profound appreciation for spiritual ideas. As I said to him, we're thinking from a spiritual perspective all the time, without realising it. From a scientific perspective, when we are reading a book, all we are doing is staring at ink spots on paper pulp. However, from a spiritual perspective, we are reading ideas.
This chap had to agree with me that the way I understand God, (as Life, Truth, Love) he could accept. It was simply (as you say) the man with the white beard in the cloud, pulling strings, smiting some rewarding others that people quite rightly reject!
Judy
Yep.
But what also helped me escape atheism (very quickly!) at around 20 years old, was the discovery of a system of thought which perfectly intertwines with science. So much so, that as I've several times posted about on HP, it even has had clairvoyants who saw microscopically, and discovered quarks, and super-string theory, many years before science did. Their knowledge is still beyond that of present physics.
That's really just one example (which without a fair bit of reading up on people don't accept) - but in short I found that modern "religion" is in some ways not necessarily built upon the way I once thought of "faith" i.e. "you have to believe as someone's telling you, or it's in a book".
I discovered that spirituality has a science to it, which goes into everything - how electricity or gravity work, where is the "mind" or "person" really located (not in the brain!) and so on.
There need be no dichotomy between science and spirituality. They're the same things approached in different ways, if approached correctly.
V
Scott, my apologies if my last post sounded rude, as it was not intended that way. I was just explaining where I was coming from. I think understanding why you believe what you believe is important. However, if I fail to do that (perhaps miserably) then so be it.
With respect Johnny, you could not have once been where I am now. If you'd had the practical proof of what a scientific understanding of God brings, you would never have left it.
Admittedly, I have not had the spiritual experiences you have had, however in my opinion that does not disqualify me from having an informed opinion about the existence of god. In my reading, I seek to understand.
As you can imagine, the vast majority of religious and spiritual people I speak to are wishy-washy, talk a lot of fluff and have no idea how to defend their belief. So I suppose I'm not used to talking with someone like yourself, and it's a pleasant surprise.
I'm not talking about a blind faith but of provable, practical, spiritual laws.
Ok, this right here is what bothers me. So far, all anyone can offer me (either online or in the real world) is anecdotal evidence, that is, personal experience.
If you have links to articles that describe these "provable, practical, spiritual laws" then let me know. I did take the time to read the threads you have linked, but like I said, I'm looking for more than anecdotal evidence.
So far, in my research since abandoning religion, I have gone further away. Initially, I thought I might find out that there was a strong case for spiritual belief, but in my experience, the opposite has been true. The case was shakier then I had first thought. And the more I learn, the more this is true.
However, assuming what you are talking about is based on provable, practical, spiritual laws, then it would make sense to say that I could demonstrate to myself their existence. That is, I could test them myself in some way to evaluate them.
If something like this is feasible, please describe how I could do it, as you've got me interested. I'm open to trying things, but as you already know, I'm deeply sceptical.
This chap had to agree with me that the way I understand God, (as Life, Truth, Love) he could accept. It was simply (as you say) the man with the white beard in the cloud, pulling strings, smiting some rewarding others that people quite rightly reject!
I can appreciate the fact that we're on the same page when it comes to religion. What you seem to be referring to as "god" is perhaps different to what I expected.
You have a somewhat "loose" definition of what or who god is. If I defined the word god is life, truth, and love then I would be a believer. You must understand, that the looser our definition becomes, the more meaningless the concept is.
My problem is generally with a personal god who intervenes with the world, cares about what happens, has a mind, feels love, and so on and on.
A little more information about me might help.
Recently, I've become deeply interested in personal development material, for example Anthony Robbins. I've also done a lot of reading about the whole "intention-manifestion" model, and how our thoughts can affect our world. So far, I've had some amazing experiences and am believing more and more in the power of it all. I recognise that there are things we are yet to understand about life and about consciousness, and I'm open to a lot of ideas about these things. I'm a particular fan of "mind over body" material.
Along with this, recently I'm been reading a lot about zen buddhism. I have made it a habit to meditate every morning on weekdays, and have also noticed a positive effect.
So as you can see, I'm open to these ideas. But in everything, I look for a natural explanation. If I can't find it, then I take the attitude that either I'll find out in the future how it works, or perhaps I'll never find out. I think jumping to the conclusion of "god" is somewhat naive.
Anyway, I look forward to your reply.
I discovered that spirituality has a science to it, which goes into everything - how electricity or gravity work, where is the "mind" or "person" really located (not in the brain!) and so on.
There need be no dichotomy between science and spirituality. They're the same things approached in different ways, if approached correctly.
Is this the argument of how quantum physics is discovering or proving the spiritual realm?
If there's a science to it, I'd to know where I can find out about it.
Is this the argument of how quantum physics is discovering or proving the spiritual realm?
If there's a science to it, I'd to know where I can find out about it.
Oh, I see. No I didn't mean that. I meant kind of in reverse, where "spiritual powers" that some people have are put to extraordinary scientific use.
Years ago I came across Theosophy. Particularly around 1880 to 1925, the organisation's ("alleged" we might say) clairvoyants were extraordinarily trained. They basically became spiritual scientists, spending their time writing books on what were basically their most careful and detailed descriptions of finer "planes" or levels of being. In other words, particles become so small or fine - far smaller than quarks - that we are then talking about higher or finer levels of existence. They are each realms in their own right, and we all have bodies at that level, which correspond to and occupy the same space as our physical bodies.
The physical body does not create the finer bodies: rather, it's formed by them. They are more fundamental.
I find this best summed up in the books of Col. Arthur E. Powell:
- The Etheric Double
- The Astral Body
- The Mental Body
But there's a long-standing yogic tradition that by trained clairvoyance, it's possible to use "micro-psi": seeing at a microscopic level. The Theosophists, over decades, carefully described how many particles, much smaller than atoms, each element in the table of elements consisted of, and even what these "anu" were like, and the super-strings connecting them.
To cut a long story short, no-one could make head or tail of these complex and illustrated observations. Until in the 1970s a mathematician, Dr. Stephen Phillips (of our south coast) realised that back in the 1800s even, the Theosophists had been seeing "chiral colour quarks" i.e. three types of quarks exist (called different 'colours') and chiral as they can be either spinning in one direction or the other. So six kinds of quark. The numbers the Theosophists assigned to each element's atom corresponded with modern quark theory - this just hadn't been realised.
I've a thread on this at:
I guess the real point is that these same scientific clairvoyants, proven IMHO to have been accurate as they pre-dated quark theory, also went on to describe life-after-death in detail, astral projection, auras, our "Higher Bodies or Selves", karma, reincarnation, and extremely high levels of existence one could only call, maybe Heaven. And the beings existing there.
It's the kind of detail - on quarks and in the Powell books - that convinced me. It's basically ahead of the conventional sciences, and predicts beforehand, every time, what the sciences eventually discover. To me, a great merging of spirituality (including the nature of 'God') with science.
You might like to check out my link, and the Powell books...
V
A Bit More On Micro-Psi
Apologies as this seems to be getting off the subject of evolution or God. But I don't believe it is. We won't take it too far. My point is simply that individuals who were able (in other work) to describe in detail the afterlife, angels, nature spirits, and a scientific understanding of the nature of God, also apparently saw quarks, the real nature of electricity, and unknown energy sources science could tap into.
I've always liked the micro-psi work simply because the chances of them in the 1800s and early 1900s getting it right on the number of quarks in each kind of atom, perfectly accurately in every case, could only happen to a chance of millions to one.
Such clairvoyant work, to me, can cross-fertilise with the "hard" sciences. It gives pointers as to where science should look in its research - the real nature of how things work. So I like to use their work in micro-psi and say, "Hey, they could do this - but they also described angels, the nature fo God, reincarnation ... so shouldn't what they said on that be heeded too?"
Just a few links on micro-psi or "Occult Chemistry" as they called it:
An introduction to the work.
An esoteric theory of everything
V
I'll take a look at the links you posted, and also "theosophy" in general.
I must admit, I'm extremely sceptical, but I'll see what I can find.
Out of curiosity, have you personally experienced anything these "clairvoyants" claim to experience? For example this microscopic vision? Is there a set of steps to experience it myself?
And I also find it interesting that both you and Principled seem to be arguing for the existence of god, or at least of a higher consciousness. However you both go in a different direction (from what I can see) and believe wildly different things about the nature of god. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I'm wondering, what do you think about those who believe differently?
Hi,
No, I can't do micro-psi! 🙂 It would be interesting. It's said on the net there are a few people in the West who can do it somewhat, but it was really just about three very good clairvoyants decades ago who did the main work. They had excellent trainers who are not publicly known. That's one argument scientists or sceptics use against micro-psi: that one element of science is that it must be replicable.
My reply to that is ... (1) Look at the facts of what they did! It can be viewed as a very rare ability, hence replicable but rarely. (2) I do believe it's replicable, but not with unchanged minds and instruments such as scientists use. It takes character- and consciousness-change, under the guidance of teachers hard to find.
I don't think Principled and I differ much at all in belief. 🙂 At least, I accept almost everything she goes along with and she's a living example of it. She may accept less of my beliefs (?). Not in karma and reincarnation maybe? As for "other beliefs" in general ... I like to think that everybody has their own way of "contacting" the same God. Contacts differ because "God" (an insufficient term for phenomena Higher than ourselves, so we never each know the whole, only an iota) is beyond real knowing. God can be thought of as Consciousness, a high element of Nature, All-Love, Male, He/Her - all are true in their way.
I do tend to get a bit ironic when concepts of God become concrete and limiting (evangelical Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses ... 🙂 ).
V