Why are some scientists averse to religion?

[Pyrotex]

...Do you have a better model of consciousness to offer?

I am wading through Daniel C. Dennett's "Consciousness Explained". It is not an easy read. Check with me later.

 

huffin' and puffin'

[arkain101]

Whether or not god exists isn't particular important for this discussion, it is the self evident nature of god's non-existence that is important. There is no reason to even think about any god in the real world.

 

Lets open a thread on this. What reasons should a person think up of, about, and or believe in a god. That should be interesting.

[IDMclean]

Hence why science (as a paradigm and methodology) and some scientist are adverse to some religion.

 

It is often alleged that religion and god can not be defined by science, logic, philosophy or any other such thing. The reasons are many, and most of which are fallacious. I would venture to guess that perhaps even all of the reasons are fallacious.

 

If something can not be defined, then it does not belong to the realm of the universe. This is true by identity. The simple existence of a so-called non-existent property is evidence of it's inclusion in what exists and by all empirical evidence, it's root in material physicality. The result is either Null set or a set.

 

To define undefinable nonthings which are irrelevant to reality, is outside the realm of reason, observation, and logic. Generally such behavior is fanciful at best, schizophrenic at worst.

 

Hence why some scientist are adverse to some religions. Rare is the truely scientific person who is completely adverse to all religions. Fallacious is any scientist whom is so biased.

[InfiniteNow]

If something can not be defined, then it does not belong to the realm of the universe. This is true by identity.

Define love, then, when you cannot do so adequately, explain how it does not belong to the realm of the universe. :eek:

[IDMclean]

Love is a combonation of several important, observable affects. Of which the bohemian Ideals exemplify.

 

Truth: Honesty with one's self and with others. With the responsibility to trust oneself and others, not implicitly and unconditionally but on merit of evidence.

Freedom: Liberty of and to; Liberty from. This is expressed best by the ethic of reciprocosity, and ahimsa.

Beauty: Appreciation of one self and others. With the responsibility to seek understanding of another on virtue of commonalities and differences. To seek Empathy.

 

When these elements are present, and flow is achieved, this is often percieved as the "feeling" or affect of love.

 

Love belongs firmly within the realm of the world because it can be observed, measured and defined in a number of ways, under a number of real physical and empirical paradigms and methodologies.

 

Love can effect and be effected and in turn is empirical. Much media has been empiricalally created, tested, evaluated, and peer reviewed on the definition of and existence of love.

 

This is but a synopsis of my observations of love. Of which the protracted thesis would be inappropiate for this thread.

 

This of course is looking at Love from the perspective of a Psychology. Using a mixture of behavioral, cognitive, and positive psychology.

 

Just because something has not been scientificly defined, or examined does not mean that it is impossible to define or examine it. Which is my contention with religion, god, and laymen scientist. As it has been asserted (burden of proof falls on the one making the assertion) here, and not backed by evidence, religion and god can not be defined by science. I vehemently disagree and do so on the mounds of evidence to the contrary.

 

Any truely scientific person does not simply disregard a given concept on the bases of personal contempt. A scientist, within their capability, considers first the validity of the hypothesis, and if their interest is sufficient, lacking a proper hypothesis revises until one has a viable falsifable hypothesis.

 

There are reasons things are defined, redefined, and reviewed in the scientific process.

[InfiniteNow]

I think you've missed my point, but I thank you all the same for the well thought out post above. :weather_hot: I do, however, believe that religion and god CAN be defined by science, but my point was to draw out the fallacy in your comment that the undefined does not exist (in the realm of the universe).

 

 

Cheers. :eek:

[Larv]

I am wading through Daniel C. Dennett's "Consciousness Explained". It is not an easy read.

I have not yet read Dennett's book on consciousness—only reviews. I gather that Dennett is trying to explain a consciousness that is different from that of Jaynes' model. Jaynes holds that post-bicameral consciousness didn't show up until about 3,500 years ago, tracable in historic literature by way of differentiating the analog "I" from the metaphor "me." I agree with Jaynes that the history of the written symbolic language is a good place to look for the emergence of that kind of consciousness. Dennett, on the other, is probably looking for its physical infrastructure and certain other aspects of information processing. I think he sees human consciousness as being much older than 3,500 years. Dennett's consciousness probably includes bicamerality.

 

—Larv

[IDMclean]

I think you've missed my point, but I thank you all the same for the well thought out post above. :weather_hot: I do, however, believe that religion and god CAN be defined by science, but my point was to draw out the fallacy in your comment that the undefined does not exist (in the realm of the universe).

 

 

Cheers. :eek:

 

I did not say doesn't exist. I said:

 

If something can not be defined, then it does not belong to the realm of the universe. This is true by identity.

 

What I mean is that something that can not be defined is Null set.

 

There is something distinctly different from stating something doesn't exist and something doesn't belong to another thing. My point was the paradox of defining something (or nothing) as undefinable. Which reminds me of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

[arkain101]

It appears nearly anything related to what life 'experinces' is non-existent relative to basic physics of the universe. Things the universe can do well without, but where does "it" (forms of perception life experiences) come from if the universe excludes the reality, or mear necessity of it?

 

These parts of existence (the non-existent type :D ) can be chosen to be 'ignored' but how can you ignore something without inevitably supporting its existence. See, you can not ignore another universe, as obviously it doesnt exist to you..so how can we ignore life related phemina as mear illusions when they are the very reasn you are capable to ignore?

 

How can you elude these aspects without eluding oneself? I've tried to look at countless point of views but I can't seem to break away from the strangeness of my own existence! :doh: :eek_big: :eek:

[hallenrm]

Ultimately, both science and religion are attempts to understand the mysteries of the world around by the humanity with the tools available. Religions because they are oftem much more older than what is called science today used dated tools, because they did not have the modern means of investigation, but they had people who had much fewer distractions to engage in contemplative thought. Mankind at that time could contemplate on many more issues that were found perplexing.

 

In this process mankind introduced new concepts whenever the set of earlier concepts was found wanting. Just like, the case of elementary particles, new concepts are being added to explain the unexplainable. People who were responsible for the development of religions did just about that. Perhaps they were the scientists of bygone era, and today the scientists have the same attitude towards them as do teenagers of today have for old people.:eek_big:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Define love, then, when you cannot do so adequately, explain how it does not belong to the realm of the universe. :eek_big:

As usual, you cut straight to the heart of the issue. Thank you.

Love is a concept of consciousness. It exists, but only in the mind of a conscious entity. Like time. (I can hear the guns cocking.)

Can you measure it? Hell yes. You can't measure it in me, but you can measure it in you.

I love discussions like this. I love the idea that we are focused on making observations about meaningful things. And if some of those things exist only in our heads, so what? If they feed the engine that understands existence, then they have value and should be scrutinized and cared for.

A universe without meaning is a universe without life. And if one is careless and throws out all things 'religious', one could throw out some pretty important concepts of consciousness.

Perhaps it would make more sense to understand what they are and protect them first?

[Sacri Sankt]

Please DO read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"!! I have read it three times in 12 years. Mind-blowing piece of research and logical speculation.

 

You'll never think about "god" the same way again.

 

yes, its very cool. i favour the inter[retation that the earliest cave paintings are the sign of the emergence of conciouness, tho.

 

As to Peer Reviews in religion, synods do not make the grade. A scientific peer review essentially speaks for all Science, ensuring that any new paper does, at least, NOT violate any well-respected tenets or processes of known science.

 

Synods only speak for one "denomination"--which is only a minority segment of "Religion" in general.

 

thats a very scientific view :eek_big:

 

seriously tho, denominations dont see themselves as part of something greater. they see themselves just as science does, as the custodians of the truth. everyone else, including those of simmilar faiths, is behaving irrationally in their eyes. its because being religious is a state of self-induced psychosis. it distorts its sufferers entier worldview.

[Pyrotex]

...seriously tho, denominations dont see themselves as part of something greater. they see themselves just as science does, as the custodians of the truth. everyone else, including those of simmilar faiths, is behaving irrationally in their eyes. its because being religious is a state of self-induced psychosis. it distorts its sufferers entier worldview.

Yes. And the Emperor sees himself as clothed in the finest silk garments ever made. There is a lot of truth in what you say.

[Larv]

...seriously tho, denominations dont see themselves as part of something greater. they see themselves just as science does, as the custodians of the truth. everyone else, including those of simmilar faiths, is behaving irrationally in their eyes. its because being religious is a state of self-induced psychosis. it distorts its sufferers entier worldview.

I would like to meet just one scientist who claims he/she is a "custodian of the truth." I'm a scientist and I claim an eternal skepticism of the "truth." The key word here is "distorts." Distortion is what science attempts to irradicate, IMO, while religion uses it as a tool to enhance the faithfulness of its true believers.

 

—Larv

[Tormod]

Excellent point, Larv. Only bad science is about "truth". Science is about the pursuit of understanding and knowledge.

[Sacri Sankt]

youre quite right larv, scientists dont tend to see themselves that way, but they do see science as the tool towards truth. the situations are comparable, i think, in terms of the attitude of the various groups.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

what differentiates a scientist who is indifferent to religion and one that is averse to it?

Is it just the context of the moment and what one is contemplating? If I am frying fish, religion (well, fish is probably a bad example. Pork...no. Aw Jesus. Beef...oh, man. Eggs?) is not going to be on my mind. So, in what context would some scientists be averse to it?

The question stated in the thread implies there are two types of scientists. Those that are averse to religion and those that are not. Is it possible that the scientists that are averse to religion claim that those who are not aren't scientific? If both sets are still scientists, then whatever constitutes the difference cannot be part of the definition of being a scientist.

So, is it a moot point?