Can you mix science with god?

[iNow]

I disagree. Try defining "god" to see why.

[redshift1100]

I think so. I'm agnostic being open to the concept of god but skeptical of their being one.

 

Although if their is a god, I'm sure its something a lot more sophisticated than our brains are able to comprehend

 

 

 

 

Could god be everything together in the universe acted together as a collective conscious?

 

Quantum physics shows us that particles can retain information.

 

What if everything together right down to quarks, energy, radiation, etc is collectively god?

 

I'm not saying their is a god, or even if their is one I doubt we could even grasp the slightest notion of what god is. I just don't think mixing god with science is out of the answer and wanted to throw this out their

 

Newton did just that, same goes for Decartes. A Universe so elegant must be the work of a higher power right? One thing that we should know is that our notion of a God largely doesn't fit the mold. Even worse, when God and science made it's marriage in the 16th and 17th century, it took modern religion in a bad direction. As Science started to have the "answers", some religious elements decided to counter this rise in knowledge with a fundamentalist view. The Bible become ridged and real, something largely not intended of religion. Now we have people making ridiculus claims in order to support things such as the Genisis creation myths, making them cannon fodder for the Richard Dawkins of the world. Hence, God and Science and live together but are best left apart.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Religion is under no obligation to go by the rules of science, an omniscient God is free to set up this universe in his own ways. As Eugene Scott said "You start with the revealed truth and that governs your reflection upon the empirical world".

 

No, you do not. And putting it in bold text does not make t true.

We all made empirical observations about the world before we had the language skills to have any truth "Revealed" to us.

 

Why cite obviously nonsensical quotes?

[immortal]

According to the WIKI article about it, "The noumenon pron.: /ˈnuːmɨnɒn/ is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses."

 

I completely agree with that definition. Yes noumenon is the world which is known without using the sense organs.

 

The world of science pops up when we perceive the world via sense organs and the world of religion pops up when we perceive the world without using the sense organs.

 

And, yet, as long ago as Descartes' time, we knew that we only know about things via our senses.

So, you are talking about the set of things which we don't know to exist.

That's made up stuff.

 

Descartes? Kant?

 

We knew from the time of around 3000 B.C. that there are two ways of knowing the world. In Sanskrit we have precise words for that which the English language doesn't have, its known as Antharmukh and Bahirmukh.

 

 

Ajakshaya vinirmukta mugdha kshipra prasadini

Antarmukha samaradhya bahirmukha sudurlabha .. 162

Ajaya: For whom there is no birth.

Kshaya vinirmukta: Whom there is no decay also.

Mugdha: Who is attractive by her artless beauty and innocence.

Kshipra prasadini: Who is easily pleased.

Antarmukha samaradhya: Whose worship is easy for those whose, mental gaze is turned inward.

Bahirmukha sudurlabha: Whose worship difficult for those whose mental gaze goes outwards.

It is this simple wisdom which allows me to do both religion and science even though they are in conflict with each other. The reconciliation is that the world of science appears when we perceive the world via sense organs and the world of numinous appears when we perceive the world without the sense organs.

 

The west need to learn a lot from the ancients rather than rejecting their knowledge.

 

Is it impossible to know the noumenon? I don't think so.

 

I had it figured out very early in my life that science cannot fully describe reality and that there is something wrong with the positivism of science.

 

 

Which as Kant (who coined the term) points out, is necessarily beyond evidence. Any belief about the noumena other than that (and things derivable from that) is by definition irrational since it is impossible for any belief about the noumena to meet the threshold for sufficient evidence. Per your distinction, this means religion as a whole is an irrational enterprise.

 

Religion is metaphysical and yes Kant argued that synthetic a priori judgements were not possible in the metaphysical domain and hence he criticized the rationalist metaphysicians for making assertions on metaphysical topics like God and morality.

 

But I think synthetic a posteriori judgements are possible in the metaphysical domain, our ancients did not obtained metaphysical truths either by logical thinking or by speculation or sense observation, they obtained it directly via psychological observation or via direct experience and hence this is synthetic a posteriori in metaphysics.

 

 

It is now several thousands of years since men ceased to study Veda and Upanishad for the sake of Veda or Upanishad. Ever since the human mind in India, more & more intellectualised, always increasingly addicted to the secondary process of knowledge by logic & intellectual ratiocination, increasingly drawn away from the true & primary processes of knowledge by experience and direct perception, began to dislocate&dismember the many sided harmony of ancient Vedic truth & parcel it out into schools of thought & systems of metaphysics, its preoccupation has been rather with the later opinions of Sutras & Bhashyas than with the early truth of Scripture. Veda & Vedanta ceased to be guides to knowledge & became merely mines & quarries from which convenient texts might be extracted, regardless of context, to serve as weapons in the polemic disputes of metaphysicians.

 

I have said that the increasing intellectualisation of the Indian mind has been responsible for this great national loss. Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual & tangible experience in the spirit,—by spiritual & psychological observation, as we may say, & what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason. But a time came when men felt an imperative need to give an account to themselves & to others of this supreme&immemorial Vedic truth in the terms of logic, in the language of intellectual ratiocination.

 

- Aurobindo

 

The noumenon is knowable.

 

Except that there's nothing you can know about it. You can't even know that it exists. ALL you can rationally have beliefs about is the phenomena.

 

Agnostics are wrong, humans can know god.

[imatfaal]

I completely agree with that definition. Yes noumenon is the world which is known without using the sense organs.

 

The world of science pops up when we perceive the world via sense organs and the world of religion pops up when we perceive the world without using the sense organs.

 

 

Descartes? Kant?

 

We knew from the time of around 3000 B.C. that there are two ways of knowing the world. In Sanskrit we have precise words for that which the English language doesn't have, its known as Antharmukh and Bahirmukh.

 

 

Ajakshaya vinirmukta mugdha kshipra prasadini

Antarmukha samaradhya bahirmukha sudurlabha .. 162

 

Ajaya: For whom there is no birth.

Kshaya vinirmukta: Whom there is no decay also.

Mugdha: Who is attractive by her artless beauty and innocence.

Kshipra prasadini: Who is easily pleased.

Antarmukha samaradhya: Whose worship is easy for those whose, mental gaze is turned inward.

Bahirmukha sudurlabha: Whose worship difficult for those whose mental gaze goes outwards.

Claiming 5000 years old and providing a text without mentioning that it is closer to 1600 years old is a little disingenuous. Those lines are from the Lalita from Brahmanda Puranda - best evidence of which is about 3-400 AD and which even if you believe the folk tales is maximum age from 8-900BC. Being at least 2000 years out of date does tend to look bad on a science forum.

 

It is this simple wisdom which allows me to do both religion and science even though they are in conflict with each other. The reconciliation is that the world of science appears when we perceive the world via sense organs and the world of numinous appears when we perceive the world without the sense organs.

 

The west need to learn a lot from the ancients rather than rejecting their knowledge.

The way you mangle your Kant - frankly I think you have a lot to learn from western traditions as well.

[ydoaPs]

the world of religion pops up when we perceive the world without using the sense organs.

Which we can't do. Any perception, BY DEFINITION is of the phenomena rather than the noumena. It doesn't matter if you live in reality and know that we can only perceive things via sensory organs, or if you live in your imaginary world where we have the magic ability to sense things without sensation. If you can sense it, it's the phenomena-that's what 'phenomena' means. If you're going to use big words to try to look smart, know what they mean.

 

Descartes? Kant?

You're the one who brought up (and is butchering) Kant.

We knew from the time of around 3000 B.C. that there are two ways of knowing the world.

No we didn't. You cannot know falsehoods, and that is a falsehood. There are (maybe, the very definition of the noumena means we can't prove it exists) two aspects of ontic entities, but that in know way means that both are knowable.

 

In Sanskrit we have precise words for that which the English language doesn't have, its known as Antharmukh and Bahirmukh.

The noumenon is knowable.

That was wrong the first time you claimed it, and it's wrong now.

 

The way you mangle your Kant - frankly I think you have a lot to learn from western traditions as well.

If only the people would listen to the philosophers in the forum about philosophy even half as much as they do the physicist about physics.

[immortal]

Claiming 5000 years old and providing a text without mentioning that it is closer to 1600 years old is a little disingenuous. Those lines are from the Lalita from Brahmanda Puranda - best evidence of which is about 3-400 AD and which even if you believe the folk tales is maximum age from 8-900BC. Being at least 2000 years out of date does tend to look bad on a science forum.

As I have made the same point elsewhere in the other thread I very well know that the quote is from the Lalita Sahasranama. The puranas were written at a later period to make the common man understand what was there in the Vedas, it doesn't change the fact that the same concept exists in the Rig veda which is much older and hence this idea of Antharmukh and Bahirmukh is at least 5000 years old.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70431-could-god-be-dimensionless-point-of-consciousness-and/page-7#entry715043

The way you mangle your Kant - frankly I think you have a lot to learn from western traditions as well.

 

I am actually very much disappointed with the amount of ignorance that exists in this world.

 

 

 

I still find a large gap between the way academic people interpret these scriptures and the way local scholars from India interpret the same scriptures and I find that these local scholars were way ahead of their times. The west still need to learn a lot.

[John Cuthber]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you quoted this "As Eugene Scott said "You start with the revealed truth and that governs your reflection upon the empirical world"." even though it's clearly not true.

As I said, as infants, we all learned about the empirical world before we had any truth revealed to us.

[immortal]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you quoted this "As Eugene Scott said "You start with the revealed truth and that governs your reflection upon the empirical world"." even though it's clearly not true.

As I said, as infants, we all learned about the empirical world before we had any truth revealed to us.

 

I think you need to know the context in which it was being said.

 

 

Currently there seems to be a bug issue with youtube embed.

[ydoaPs]

 

Currently there seems to be a bug issue with youtube embed.

I tried to fix that for you. It didn't work, though.

[Consistency]

But most of us just call that wonder and awe at the unknown... deep and profound inspiration about the magnificence and mind boggling scale of the universe itself. Why introduce the term "god" to describe all of that... a term so inescapably sullied and bogged down with such baggage and bullshit and batshit craziness when regular terms more than suffice?

 

We can agree that there is passion inspiring amazingness all around us. Can't we also agree that calling it "god" only detracts from that amazingness?

 

How come scientists never study the unknown without math?

 

Regular terms such as...

 

It detracts from the amazinness because most people associate the name God with religion.

 

I don't understand the hate towards religion in this thread. Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group. Hence following a religion serves them even though they don't believe in everything about that religion. All in all.. Religion is excellent form of free therapy.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Consistency

[ydoaPs]

How come scientists never study the unknown without math?

Because natural language is incapable of doing it. You derive length contraction from how magnetic and electric fields interact using only English. Then I'll use math. Let's see which is better. Make sure you derive it precisely enough that we can take measurements to test your derivation against reality.

[Iggy]

The world of science pops up when we perceive the world via sense organs and the world of religion pops up when we perceive the world without using the sense organs.

 

You make that other world of senselessness sound wonderful. I don't know why you keep chatting us up in this world. You could choose to live there. I suggest you take a bunch of ketamine, lock yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, and spend the next couple years there. If that world is real and not just 'real to you' then I can't think of anything that could go wrong.

[iNow]

How come scientists never study the unknown without math?

Study occurs all of the time without math. As a general rule, though, publications do not.

I don't understand the hate towards religion in this thread.

Religion is belief in the absence of, and quite often in direct opposition to evidence. When interacting with a group of individuals who prioritize evidence over evasiveness and vacuous wish thinking, one should not be surprised at the quick dismissals and scoffing that results.

Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group.

How about no? Does no work for you? That's powerful stupid right there.

[John Cuthber]

I don't understand the hate towards religion in this thread. Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group. Hence following a religion serves them even though they don't believe in everything about that religion. All in all.. Religion is excellent form of free therapy.

I don't understand the hate towards football hooliganism in this thread. Scientists should be respectful of football hooligans since there is football hooligans who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group. Hence following football hooliganism serves them even though they don't believe in everything about football hooliganism. All in all.. football hooliganism is excellent form of free therapy.

[Iggy]

I don't understand the hate towards football hooliganism in this thread. Scientists should be respectful of football hooligans since there is football hooligans who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group. Hence following football hooliganism serves them even though they don't believe in everything about football hooliganism. All in all.. football hooliganism is excellent form of free therapy.

 

Don't bring football hooliganism down to the level of religion. That's disrespectful.

[immortal]

You could choose to live there.

 

We don't have a choice, returning to fullness(Pleroma) is inevitable and actually the Brahmins try to access the noumenon world daily.

Secret of "Gayathri Mantra"

"Aum Bhur Bhuvah Svah" the Viyahritis shall have to be concerted. The three planes of Bhur Bhuvah Svah that constitute the whole universe shall have to be brought into focus. In other words, it must be established in mind that I belong to no particular country but am a dweller of the whole universe. In this way those who are Aryans, find themselves established in the Sun, the Moon, the Planets, and the stars at least once a day, and thus renew their unbreakable ties with the manifest universe.

Tat saviturvareniam bhargo devasia dhimahi: We meditate on the adorable and ever pure effulgence of the resplendent Vivifier of the Universe. But by what formula can he mantain his link with this boundless Power that manifests itself? The formula is: Dhyiyo yo na prachodayat."

- Rabindranath Tagore

You make that other world of senselessness sound wonderful. I don't know why you keep chatting us up in this world.

 

Its because we are not free, we are here to do God's work.

 

 

"Whoever is really free because of knowledge is a slave because of love of those who have not yet been able to attain the freedom of knowledge" (Gospel of Philip 77:26-29).

 

I suggest you take a bunch of ketamine, lock yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, and spend the next couple years there. If that world is real and not just 'real to you' then I can't think of anything that could go wrong.

 

Thanks for your advice but I don't need it, I have a far better way to access the noumenon without requiring any psycho-stimulants.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

"… the I that I think is distinct from the I that it, itself, intuits …; I am given to myself beyond that which is given in intuition, and yet know myself, like other phenomena, only as I appear to myself, not as I am …"

- Immanuel Kant

The real "I" has not been revealed to us, we are not this body, not this mind and not this intellect.

[Ringer]

If only the people would listen to the philosophers in the forum about philosophy even half as much as they do the physicist about physics.

Probably comes from bad philosophers tend to get heard more often than good philosophers (and drugs of course). It gives the impression that philosophy is just sitting around talking about cool ideas. I will admit that I hated philosophy for that very reason, and thought it was extremely pointless. Philosophers also have a harder time with refuting quacks (if that's the right word for it) because physics uses the math>words. Philosophy, many times, is words vs words and the quacks seem to believe all words are equal. It's the same principal many Biology quacks work under.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Part of what you argue, I argue. Part of what iNow argues, I argue. But you put too much faith in that which you do not know, and iNow is right, to call you on this misapplication of faith in your own imagination. And in this Iggy is exactly right to suggest you could test your theory, by placing yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, where you, for real, would not be bothered by your senses. The Vedic masters that suggest they need no food or water, and they could live forever if anybody would ask them to, suffer from the same "too much faith" as you apparently do. I think Moontanman, or someone once suggested you could take the shotgun test. I don't know for sure what he was referring to, but my guess is that basically we are saying to you, that if you think you can pass through walls, because they are illusions, and you are not bound, in reality to your body and senses, that you could settle the whole issue, for yourself with just one simple test. Take a run at a concrete wall, imagining yourself passing through, and tell us the results of the test. I am certain that no amount of concentration on your part will allow you to pass through the wall. This should settle the argument, and you will for certain be brought back to your "senses". (after you wake up from being knocked out).

 

If reuniting with Brahman, is ineviditable, I don't think we can either avoid it, or rush it. I would rather think that whatever the situation is now, is the one we have to live with.

 

While I think we have every right to associate with reality, and every evidence points to the fact that we are already doing that, it is crucial to the scientist, that we do so honestly, and don't make stuff up, that is not true. Regilion makes stuff up, that isn't true, and then expects they can teach these false things to the scientist. When you, Immortal, do this, and suggest that the ancient Vedic masters had a better handle on reality, than we do now, you lose most of us, including me, as to what the heck you might be talking about. And all of us, believe in the wall, much more than in your imaginary ability to pass through it. You should take a run at it. And settle this thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Consistency]

when regular terms more than suffice?

 

What are these regular terms?

 

Religion is belief in the absence of, and quite often in direct opposition to evidence. When interacting with a group of individuals who prioritize evidence over evasiveness and vacuous wish thinking, one should not be surprised at the quick dismissals and scoffing that results.

I agree however we can say the same thing about certain scientists.

 

Its obvious you guy's waste so much time hating on religions for their "evasiveness and vacuous wish thinking" while there is scientists who do the exact same thing. Whats that called?

 

I've come across a lot of science which has been passed down for many years as facts and it still is being passed of as fact while its partly wrong. Science isn't immune to errors.

 

I don't see why including the idea of God(not the religious kind) into the mix causes problems.

 

How about no? Does no work for you? That's powerful stupid right there.

 

I am not religious. You don't have to be abusive.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Consistency

[Ringer]

I agree however we can say the same thing about certain scientists.

 

Its obvious you guy's waste so much time hating on religions for their "evasiveness and vacuous wish thinking" while there is scientists who do the exact same thing. Whats that called?

If religions didn't attempt to act like science they wouldn't get hated on (for the most part). It would be like me walking into a sushi place and telling the chefs that they don't know what they're doing and my way is correct as I make a fish sandwich. I deserve to be hated on by those chefs.

 

Certainly, and it's called bad science. The difference is when scientists do it they tend to get blasted by other scientists.

I've come across a lot of science which has been passed down for many years as facts and it still is being passed of as fact while its partly wrong. Science isn't immune to errors.

First, you are describing a problem with education, not necessarily science. That being said, science is always wrong, but it's wrong by degrees. We are less wrong now than we were 2 years ago and we will be less wrong 2 years from now. That's the difference, science knows it's wrong and actively works to show where it is wrong.

I don't see why including the idea of God(not the religious kind) into the mix causes problems.

What's a non-religious god?

Because it is by it's nature not part of science. If it's a natural phenomena it's not god by any definition I've ever seen used.

[Phi for All]

How about no? Does no work for you? That's powerful stupid right there.

I am not religious. You don't have to be abusive.

 

!

Moderator Note

I haven't posted since the earlier part of this thread, and I'll refrain from posting as a member in it from now on so I can add a bit of moderation here.

 

While not the most civil choice of words, describing a statement or idea as "stupid" is in no way meant as an abusive personal attack. It's against our rules to call each other stupid, but attacking statements and ideas is part of acceptable practices here. If you have a problem with a person's choice of words, asking them to clarify why they chose them is also considered a best practice.

[Iggy]

 

You could choose to live there.

 

We don't have a choice

 

Indeed you don't. You can't choose to live in your imagination because it isn't real. It is exactly that simple.

 

 

Its because we are not free, we are here to do God's work.

 

One of us is free because one of us is not here to do God's work. I hold no hope that you will unchain yourself from the imaginary concepts you espouse, but at least we both recognize that those concepts strip away your freedom and make you a slave. Yes, you are right, you are a slave.

 

 

EDIT...

 

as an aside... ketamine isn't a psychostimulant. Caffine is a psychostimulant. Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic which is why I mentioned it. It separates a person's consciousness from their senses which is what you've been talking about. "psychostimulant" I wonder if you had any idea what that meant before you typed it.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Iggy

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Part of what you argue, I argue. Part of what iNow argues, I argue. But you put too much faith in that which you do not know, and iNow is right, to call you on this misapplication of faith in your own imagination. And in this Iggy is exactly right to suggest you could test your theory, by placing yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, where you, for real, would not be bothered by your senses. The Vedic masters that suggest they need no food or water, and they could live forever if anybody would ask them to, suffer from the same "too much faith" as you apparently do. I think Moontanman, or someone once suggested you could take the shotgun test. I don't know for sure what he was referring to, but my guess is that basically we are saying to you, that if you think you can pass through walls, because they are illusions, and you are not bound, in reality to your body and senses, that you could settle the whole issue, for yourself with just one simple test. Take a run at a concrete wall, imagining yourself passing through, and tell us the results of the test. I am certain that no amount of concentration on your part will allow you to pass through the wall. This should settle the argument, and you will for certain be brought back to your "senses". (after you wake up from being knocked out).

 

If reuniting with Brahman, is ineviditable, I don't think we can either avoid it, or rush it. I would rather think that whatever the situation is now, is the one we have to live with.

 

While I think we have every right to associate with reality, and every evidence points to the fact that we are already doing that, it is crucial to the scientist, that we do so honestly, and don't make stuff up, that is not true. Regilion makes stuff up, that isn't true, and then expects they can teach these false things to the scientist. When you, Immortal, do this, and suggest that the ancient Vedic masters had a better handle on reality, than we do now, you lose most of us, including me, as to what the heck you might be talking about. And all of us, believe in the wall, much more than in your imaginary ability to pass through it. You should take a run at it. And settle this thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The Vedic Aryans are masters of nature and not its slaves, I have repeatedly said that mysticism isn't entirely subjective, it has empirical consequences which can be empirically studied. Before I wasn't so active in the religion forum and I will just shut up and go away if some of the members here stopped equating God with FSM and if some of the scientists at other places over the internet stop asserting that God is dead, no one really laughs or pity them more for their ignorance than we do.

 

I honestly state that atheists have not investigated religion with a honest mind and their position is fundamentally flawed. I am not going to just go away without challenging their preconceived notions and if you had honestly investigated both modern science and religion and had understood what both of the disciplines are saying, it just doesn't allow an atheistic view of our existence.

 

Yes, there is a numinous and this world isn't real.

 

Long term mediators Self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice.

 

Human body is being kept alive not because of reduction in entropy instead the human body is kept alive because of Prana.

 

Fasting Fakir flummoxes physicians

 

A Vedic Aryan who plays with fire.

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing special about the east even the west knew about this, the neo-platonist Iamblichus knew about it, the emperor Julian knew about it, its just we have preserved the practical knowledge too that's all. The scientific community might be blind about these things however I am not.

 

As for as your request that I need to walk through the walls or do other crazy things honestly I don't have any practical knowledge and I wasn't educated based on the eastern philosophical system and more over I am not interested in making myself invisible or teleport from one place to the other, I am after something which is worth knowing, The Holy Father himself, which is far more important.

 

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

Edited March 8, 2013 by immortal

[iNow]

I could certainly have been gentler above, but I remain firm in my stance that this position is misguided at best:

Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group.