Is religious belief a mental disorder?

I have spent this entire day arguing with a bitter atheist who insists that anyone with any sort of religious belief (i.e. having “an invisible friend”) must have a mind that is so suspect that their scientific research must be questionable. I find such a notion as abhorrent or even more abhorrent than the notion that people with darker complexions have inferior intellects or that blond haired blue eyed people are a master race. My arguments included medical doctors among “scientists” and the one M.D. who I admire VERY MUCH and thought of all during my arguments is Melissa who is a better doctor precisely because of her religious values. Another disputant in that thread is a professional scientist who said that he doubts many scientists are religious because he rarely hears any of his colleagues express religious sentiments. I countered that every human being has a sexual dimension and I am quite sure he has never seen any of his colleagues behave in a sexual fashion. That does not mean they do not have a sexual side but simply means that they are professionals and they compartmentalize things. The professional community would not feel comfortable if a chemist regularly prayed over his test tubes but this does not mean that chemists never pray. Just as it is human to be sexual it is also human to be religious, and religion may not necessarily express itself as “an invisible friend” but includes a reverential regard for the numinous and transcendent. Taoism and Buddhism are equally “religious” but do not involve “deities” and secular humanism in the style of Thoreau is also spiritual and religious but avoids reference to some deity. I also pointed out that everyone sleeps and everyone dreams during sleep and dreams are often irrational and phantasmagorical yet the fact the everyone has such dreams each night does not mean that they are somehow irrational and incapable of science or logic or reason. The human personality is complex and includes anger, jealousy, depression and even possibly schizophrenia but all this can be present in a person who is also a brilliant scientist or mathematician. Kurt Godel was quite eccentric and died of starvation from paranoid irrational fear of poisoning yet Godel was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century (and a close personal friend of Einstein.)

William: Freeman Dyson said that Richard Dawkins is foolish to tell young people that they must be atheists to be scientists. Dyson describes himself as a religious person although he does not subscribe to one particular creed. But Dawkins drives good minds away from science because the don’t want to give up their beliefs.

Lair: The question is, how “good” can a mind be that finds it necessary to believe in imaginary friends? It doesn’t seem unreasonable to be suspicious of science produced by people who accept as fact things that are incapable of being proven scientifically.

Alan: Religion and Science are fundamentally different ways of looking at the world and they use absolutely different methods of trying to answer questions about the world. While it is possible to be a religious faithful scientist, to do so one needs to be able to set aside their religious way of thinking when they step into the lab. Some people can do it but I think Dawkins is right to point out that religion and science are oppositional. Religion is about believing in things that cannot be known rationally or empirically based upon authority. Science is about looking at the world critically, as opposed to faithfully, questioning everything you are told by authority, and trusting only what you can see with your eyes and what conforms to reason.

William: Lair, with all due respect, could you share with us how far your studies progressed in physics, mathematics, calculus, differential equations, chemistry? I see that you are smirking but as far as I can see you do not have much to boast about academically or intellectually (any more that I do.)

I am guessing that advanced algebra might give you a problem. But you seem willing to judge the minds of scientists and mathematicians when you yourself are not particularly accomplished in math and science. It is not accurate to dismiss all religion and spirituality as “belief in an invisible friend.”

Lair, you seem to feel that a scientific mind MUST be a good mind and a good mind could not possibly hold some religious belief. And yet the converse is not true, namely, a mind which is good like yours in rejecting a belief in “invisible friends” is not a mind which is gifted in math or physics or academic achievement.

Kurt Gödel was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century and a close friend of Einstein and Kurt Gödel actually attempted to PROVE the existence of God –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_ontological_proof

Regarding Einstein:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one).

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity

Regarding Max Planck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Religious_view

Planck was a devoted and persistent adherent of Christianity from early life to death, but he was very tolerant towards alternative views and religions, and so was discontented with the Nazi church organizations’ demands for unquestioning belief.
The god in which Planck believed was an almighty, all-knowing, benevolent but unintelligible god that permeated everything, manifest through symbols, including physical laws. His view may have been motivated by an opposition like Einstein’s and Schrödinger’s against the positivist view. Planck was interested in truth and a Universe beyond observation, and objected to atheism as an obsession with symbols.

Lair: I ask a question, William. I did not claim to have a “good” mind myself. I said only that it “doesn’t seem unreasonable to be suspicious of science produced by people who accept as fact things that are incapable of being proven scientifically.” You present good examples of scientists who maintained religious beliefs while doing scientific work. Fine. So, yes, scientists can be religious. I will give you that. It doesn’t seem unreasonable, however, to find religious scientists suspect until proven otherwise.

William: Obviously most human beings are by nature very sexual, but if they were to engage in sexual activity in the class room or the laboratory or the library or the office they would probably wind up in prison. Human beings are also by nature spiritual or religious if you prefer. We learn to separate and compartmentalize our urges, instincts, desires, natures. We do one thing on a battle field, and another thing in a laboratory and another thing in a library and yet something else in the bridal suite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop surgeon general was something of a fundamentalist Christian, but he put aside his personal beliefs in order to promote sex education and distribution of condoms precisely because his appointment was meant NOT as a bully pulpit to promote his own personal agendas but as a stewardship to serve the best interests of his constituents.

And what are we to say of those who practice surgery and medicine and yet believe in God and pray and attend church. Are their minds too demented for them to be trusted with a scalpel or a drug prescription pad?

Lair: I don’t question your sincerity, William. You argue robustly, and it does not offend me. Yes, we departmentalize our lives every day. I was very suspicious of Dr. Koop when he was appointed for precisely the reasons you mention. He proved to be intellectually “above” his beliefs, and I became a big fan. However, I do not easily accept anyone with strong religious beliefs, no matter the “department”, without being quite watchful. I come from a very devout fundamentalist Christian background – I can quote scripture with the best of them – and I know the “power” of belief and how it can creep into crevices, and so scientists or whoever will have to prove they can “overcome” before I am prepared to accept them carte-blanche

William: Lair, I have been giving a lot of thought to this thread. For the sake of argument let us say that you are no different from 50% of humanity in the sense that you could not think your way out of a paper bag when it comes to mathematics, physics, chemistry, physiology, etc. If that is the case than why oh why would you worry whether Einstein goes to a synagogue on Saturday, or Stephen Hawking takes communion. Since you are not intellectually or academically equipped to evaluate whatever science or math you know they why do you worry whether the scientists or mathematicians who produced such science are atheist or agnostic, or Sufi whirling dervishes? Lair, whatever it is that you do know about math or physics (which presumably is very little) you “know” it in the sense of hear-say. You hear it on the television or you watch a nature or science channel or you read a magazine or worse yet you find it on the internet, and then you just parrot it back without any deep grasp or understanding. Lair, you do not impress me because you are too clever to believe in “invisible friends,” rather you do not impress me because you never say anything impressive or profound or insightful or intellectual. That doesn’t mean that I don’t like you as a person and it does not mean that I never benefit by reading what you post. Now, IF you were to begin writing some mind-boggling ideas that set my mind on fire I really would not care whether you fantasize about Tinker Bell doing things with Peter Pan or any number of other things. The achievements of scientists stand on their own apart from the personal beliefs or doubts of the scientists who make those discoveries. The scientific revolution itself divorces ideas from the thinker in the sense that it is experimentally verifiable.

Lair: I suppose I am just not up to your intellectual level, William. I can live with that. Most of what you write goes right over my head or my eyes glaze over. It does not communicate anything whatsoever to me. It is intellectual blah-blah, meant, I suppose, to show superiority of intellect. It doesn’t mean that I don’t like you as a person, and it does not mean that I never benefit by reading what you post. I have opinions, no matter whether they “impress” you or not. However, I do not live to “impress’, amazingly enough. Scientific achievements do indeed stand on their own. Good thing, because if I knew the facts of the lives of those that achieve the science, i might be appalled, disgusted, or at least less likely to accept their findings.

William: Lair, what I write about each and every day is exactly what I think and how I think. I touch type 80 wpm. I dont do it to impress anyone. I do it as an exercise, like jumping jacks. Personally I feel like an intellectual failure. I look for a few people who are head and shoulders above my level who will have the patience to put up with my slow-witted nature. There are a few people who follow what I write because they feel that I am on a higher level than them and they seek to elevate themselves. I know who those few people are and we correspond privately. I do this because it is my nature, it is in my blood, it is all I know how to do. I have been like this since I was age 10 or 11. My high school class elected me class philosopher and I thought it was some kind of joke or lark at the time. Only years later did I realize WHY they chose me as class philosopher. I did not choose or want to be this way. I was simply born this way. Yes, it is true that I chose to exercise and nurture this nature that I was born with. I had a friend in Beijing China who was doing his Masters degree in English. He was under the gun to write a philosophical paper in English in two weeks. There was no way he could do it. He was not equipped to do that linguistically or intellectually/scholastically. I did a paper off the top of my head in 3 hours, ten pages, as fast as I could type and I could do that because I have thought and rethought the same issues for years. Then we spent some time “dumbing it down” so it did not sound like the writing of a native speaker. They wanted to give him a prize for it but he declined. The things that I post come into my head automatically. If I dont write them down they I forget them, they disappear. Sometimes I actually wake up in the middle of the night with a new idea and have to write it down before I forget it, which means that I even do this stuff in my sleep. There are a few people who are exactly on the same wave-length as I am. We have long discussions and stimulate each other to new realizations. In fact, sometimes we complete each others thoughts and sentences. By the way, some of these people are Hindu, some are Muslim, some are Catholic, some are Jewish, and some are even Atheist or Agnostic. Their religious or spiritual is as irrelevant as their gender, age, skin color, native language, sexual orientation, politics, etc.

Lair: I do know how to respond to what you just wrote, William, except to ask, am I such a bore for you that you would prefer I not respond to your posts? That would be fine with me if that is what you would prefer. I notice that many of your posts receive no response. This one I responded to because it touched one of my “buttons”: what I think of as the silliness of religion. But I can just as soon read them and go “huh” and move on without responding.

William: Lair, I do not worry about the credibility of what physicists and mathematicians do on the basis of their religious beliefs, and I consider myself a dummy, so if most of what I am saying is flying over your head, then EVEN LESS should you worry about whether some theistic scientist is leading you down the path of deception or destruction. You made what I consider to be an erroneous observation, namely that any religious mind must be incapable of mathematics or science. I tried to make you aware of why I find your observation to be erroneous in a firm but cordial manner. The majority of humanity are nit-wits who smoke when they know it causes cancer, abuse intoxicants, engage in dangerous sexual practices and get over their heads in debt. Taking some medicine developed by some orthodox Jew scientist is the least of your worries. I have 1060 friends on my list. About 100 or less say things which impress the hell out of me and that doesnt happen every single day. The other 900 are simply nice folks. I enjoy reading what they have to say. Sometimes, I have some reply that helps or amuses them. Different people read what I write for any number of reasons. Perhaps some of them think I am a raving fool and enjoy a good laugh. I read everything that everyone writes. I try to be compassionate and helpful. Sometimes I just remain silent. Sometime, like in your case today, I feel it is my duty to say what is on my mind. What can I say?

Barbara: ‎”Faith” is an interestingly human condition, whether it is faith in something we can see and touch or faith in something unknown. I have faith that the earth will still be revolving around the sun when I wake up tomorrow. I also have faith that if I continue to put one foot in front of the other, my body will continue to move forward. One day, one or the other of those things may not happen according to the faith that I have, but for now, that faith makes my life easier because I don’t have to spend all my time checking to make sure that either is still true.

Since the “faith” that each of us has is created and maintained for the sole purpose of making our OWN lives easier, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to try to convince one person to give up his faith because it is wrong according to the other.

Atheism is “faith.” It is the faith that there is no super power over all of us doing anything at all. But, if we were to delve deeper, would we find that all atheists really don’t believe in any super power at all? What about the power of nature, humanness, “cause & effect?” The atheist may not believe in a supernatural “being” ruling the world (which technically I don’t believe in either even though I am NOT atheistic because I don’t believe that I can prove there is no supernatural power ruling everything…) but he might believe that the earth will still be revolving around the sun tomorrow morning and that really IS “FAITH” by the strictest definition of the word. Buddhists believe that all the “power” is inside ourselves…. that we are our own higher powers, so to speak. Is Buddhism not a “faith?”

I read all of the comments here, and I noticed something interesting. Each person was trying to convince the other that his own way of thinking about faith is the right way to think. And that is the Christian way… to try to convert everyone else to the Christian faith. However, when I return to the start of my comment now, I have to say that it is also FUTILE to try to convince others to give up their OWN faiths in order to believe something we believe. Each of us has to figure these things out for ourselves or it just doesn’t work in the way it needs to work for each person — it won’t make life easier and it will then be abandoned by the other as useless.

Some things can be proven; other things can’t be proven. But, I honestly don’t think that Lair is going to be persuaded into believing in Bill’s faith through being berated or having his intelligence (or lack thereof if there actually is such a lack in him) shoved in his face. I am not very good in mathematics (above the level of algebra) but I obtained a degree from the university anyway…. with Ds in Calculus.
I have heard tell that Einstein had his own difficulties with mathematics when he was in school. But, maybe that was merely rumor.

I used to type really fast. Now, I just sound like I am typing quickly to all those who type with two or three fingers. If I type faster than 60 wpm now, I would be amazed! But, it really doesn’t matter in the whole scheme of life.

Life is not a contest as much as some would like to make it so. It is not a race, or maybe I should say, it should not be a race or it is not a race for me. No matter what we believe, we will all end up in the same place at the end of our lives, … , DEAD. So, we may as well enjoy our friends along the way.

As for Dawkins, Dyson, and all the rest, it is MY OPINION and nothing more, that science and faith CAN AND DO exist concurrently in all of us. We can get rid of neither, because faith is a part of the human condition whether it is a faith in the fact that you can prove that there is no supernatural “god” or a faith in something else. I agree with all of the points of view expressed here and I agree with none of them,…, on different points and as far as I am concerned, that is what makes me human, too.

Yehoshua: Most things that we live by and stake our lives on are things we accept not by rigorous proof but by experience and what we consider to be an extremely high probablity of their being true. The vast majority of world religions base themselves on founding events experienced by one person or a few. The outstanding exception to this general rule is the revelation of Sinai. This is the only instance in which a religion makes a claim that an entire nation experienced at least part of the fundamental revelation. Of course Christianity and Islam accepted Sinai and built their own structures over it. The basic revelation was never questioned until Spinoza. And don’t forget that the Jews are not and never have been a credulous people.pretty skeptical, in fact. See the first book of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi’s Kuzari (medieval Spain), or for a contemporary exposition of this argument, Kelemen, Permission to Believe.

Bryan: The claim that Einstein “believed in God” is misleading. Einstein believed in an orderly universe which he referred to as “God,” not in a Christian or Jewish God who was interested in the action of individual people. He was very clear about that.

Speaking as a working scientist, I can state that scientists, in general, rarely discuss their beliefs on religion and don’t introduce these beliefs, should they have them, into their work. It simply doesn’t really come up. This suggests to me that most either don’t believe, don’t care, or, if they do, don’t consider their beliefs relevant to what they are working on. If a scientist were to attempt to introduce “beliefs” into his or her work, that person would run a strong risk of being ejected from the class of working scientists.

Barbara: Bryan’s experience has also been mine in not only science but also business in general. The *discussion* of faith is nearly non-existent and in the rare cases that someone actually brings it up in relation to the work, others become very uncomfortable to the point of separating themselves from the “offending” individual… even with the slightest mention. I have to admit that I also react by pulling away from those who interject the faith issues into the business world. Those ideas seem unduly intrusive and biased in that circumstance.

BUT, I will remark that we are ALL influenced by our faiths… often in ways that we don’t immediately notice. Our morals, how far we are willing to go in any endeavor that threatens other life, what we are willing to say and how we couch those statements about purposes, endeavors, goals, etc. We are all effected in one way or another by the ideas of acceptable “damage” in the process of knowledge or financial gain. And, whether we accept it as such or not, to a huge degree, these “limits” have been defined for us by the “faith” morays of our societies.

For instance, most of us would not consider it acceptable to kill the people who are trying to disprove our own theories in business or science, even if those individuals endeavors are believed by us to be so threatening to our own that we could end up losing financially or others “could” use the results of the offending endeavors to harm others…e.g., gun or chemical manufacture each of which “could” and do cause damages to others later. Why don’t the greatest majority of us we revert to animal instincts when we truly believe that something someone else is doing is going to have results that we truly believe will be harmful? Because, it is also part of our morals not to do so and the process of learning that we aren’t supposed to murder others is always part of our “faith” based learning.

It is instinctual for us to protect ourselves at all cost, but it is a learned belief that we “should not” act on that instinct the way many animals do. And, the reasoning for not behaving instinctively justifies the control against such acts as what is “right” rather than what we may think is necessary to survival. It would be much more natural for humans to be as aggressive as any other aggressive animal, but we are all taught to control those urges and GIVEN faith-based reasons for that control… the faith that as “better people” we gain something that is supposedly greater than what we would have if we did not exert that control.

Regardless of *which* “faith” we credit with teaching each of us this important action, it is indeed faith in something that gives us the idea of greater rewards if we live according to a certain set of “moral” rules.

And, when someone DOES deviate from that set of rules at their basest, EVERYONE generally agrees that the person is wrong or somehow sick… regardless of faith or culture proving that there is a universal idea among humans of what is “right or wrong” on the most basic levels. Anyone who has had children knows that these understandings of “right and wrong” are NOT something the children are born understanding. It is taught, and then the person’s ability to adhere to those “rules” depends on other experiences or “chemistry” in that individual.

The word, “faith” is commonly taken to refer to a certain brand of belief by many people, but technically, that word can and does cover much more ground than merely ONE religion. “Faith” is NOT inheritently the same as “Religion” and neither word is strictly limited to any particular belief in any particular supernatural power or the lack of belief in said power in the strictest sense. Assuming those words always refer in those ways to only ONE set of morays or even more limits to only ONE brand of religion is the way that humans attempt to expand the beliefs of others to match their own in more ways than the simple basics that we all learn to agree to in this world — the “do unto others as we would have them do unto us….”

William: Bryan seems to FAIL to grasp my earlier point that just because no one in the science field seems to express religious feelings is not an indication that they do not have religious feelings. I would venture to guess Bryan that no man or woman whether superior, or subordinate or student behaves towards you in a sexual fasion. Does that mean that those people are not sexual beings? Certainly not. It means that they are professionals who can compartmentalize religious feelings and sexual feelings. I think there is definitely a strong element of prejudice in our society today that a person cannot be spiritual and also scientific. At the point of Obamas election, I was speaking at length to a college studen in Beijing China. He said to me “Well, your President Obama is a lawyer, while our Communist Chinese leaders are SCIENTISTS and everyone knows that scientists are more logical and rational than lawyers.” I tried to explain to him in a polite and gentle way that he is brainwashed by his Communist party and that if his leaders have some piece of paper from some Chinese University which says they are a “scientist” then that means nothing but rather show me in journals actual contributions that your scientific leaders have made to science and mathematics. Different Communist Chinese story: I was helping a graduate student who majored in English near Beijing. Because of the time difference it was 3am for him. He said, “Oh my wife is calling for me to turn off the computer and come to bed.” As a joke I said “Tell her, OK, I know you want to make love so I will be there in a moment.” HE WENT INTO UTTER SHOCK and said “Oh, I would NEVER have such a thought. My only thoughts each and every day are to be a good citizen and Communist and help my society. I never have sexual thoughts.” I told him that he is brainwashed into denying his own nature because I guarantee you that there is not a male on the planet from the Dalai Lama to Pope Benedict to Billy Graham to Jimmy Carter to Chairman Mao who is never visited by a sexual thought or fantasy or desire. By the same token, there are capable scientists and mathematicians who have religious or spiritual sentiments. Obviously the scientific community takes a dim view of someone suddenly spreading a prayer mat on the floor or praying over their test tubes just as they take a dim view of someone suddenly grabbing someone else’s body parts in public. But have no doubt that religious sentiments exist in the human heart, along with sexual sentiments.

As for Lair, he made a ridiculous statement which insinuates that IF I go to a doctor or surgeon I must inquire whether they are an atheist, because if they believe in “invisible friends” like Jesus or Allah or Krishna then they must be incompetent lunatics. I would venture to say that medical practitioners are the only scientists that most of us come into contact with who may have some positive or negative influence on our well being. I personally dont care what Lair believes or does not believe but with regard to this particular statement of his I felt like pouring a bucket of cold water on his head to wake him up. If he is not man enough to take that then so be it. I do not throttle my thoughts simply to win popularity contests and I do not seek association with others who hold back simply to be nice or polite.

Dawn: I agree, the problem isnt with people that believe in a GOD, the problem is with their definition of what god is. we all exist, and therefore whatever facillitated that existence, whatev er governs what is Possible for us, is OUR GOD. the problem is people cannot help but personalize something that is OBVIOUSLY not a person.

GOD is consciousness manifesting, and all things that are manifested. God is Being not a human being, but being itself, it is what it is. I AM means conscious existence

Fenton: Atheists (like me) assert that there is no God.

God is excluded by the scientific method which says ”We will believe in all things for which there is good and sufficient evidence, and in no things for which there is not good and sufficient evidence.”

There is not one scintilla of credible evidence for the existence of God, or for the idea that anything supernatural is necessary to explain the appearances or the knowledge we obtain from Nature.

To say that one does not believe in God is a small quibble away from saying “I do not believe that God Exists”, which is only a micro quibble away from saying “God does not exist.”, which is only a nano-quibble away from saying “There is no God”.

Could a person be a person, and a scientist, and yet not have all of their thinking and all of their beliefs consistent with the scientific method. They would apply that method within the domain of their scientific activities, and yet, as persons in full (and not algorithms that must be 100% internally self-consistent) they would have other activities including worship, prayer, or spiritual communion with Nature, (or in my case, the Tao).

Correct answer (and this IS Fenton here) — Yes.

Only Thought Nazis and Logic Fascists believe that, within a person in full, all activities must follow one set of rules such that all beliefs must be self-consistent as a set (such that each belief is consistent with all the other beliefs, and with the one set of rules).

Jazzy folks know that Alan Watts was right — Reality is Jazzy, and it moves to its own beat, and it’s syncopated, and has riffs, and obligatos, grace notes, and cadenzas, and see, you can learn a lot from music.

A person in full equals not an algorithm.

Reality equals not an algorithm.

A person in full meets reality and the scientific method is PART of that meeting (Fenton/Cosmos) but not ALL of it.

The house of Human Existence has many mansions and they may require different keys to get into. Science has its “Open Sesame!” but the life divine, may require “Abracadabra!”

Mr. Bart used to tell me that you can see different things from a kneeling position. I never followed him there, and never saw those things. But I have seen other things, some of them what Alan Watts and Lao Tzu saw.

This is a paradoxical comment coming from a Dawkins fan, and an atheist, and a Carl Sagan fan. So here’s a little sweetener to help you swallow it — Fenton is always right. Be with that. Abide with me. I wouldn’t kid you about something like this.

Dawn: atheism makes no more sense than any other ism, the absence of god is no more proveable than the existence of GOD.

we exist whatever facillitated that existence is OUR GOD, Natural law and consciousness is our GOD

William: Robert Ornstein wrote a small book called “Multi-Mind” which basically talks about how our brain is an example of how ontology recapitulates phylogeny in the sense that there are structures in the brain that resemble every stage of human evolutionary development from worm-like creatures on up the evolutionary ladder. It is because our “mind” is not a “one” but a “many” a multitude that we can have very different things going on and some of those may be in conflict with others. A brain surgeon may for the briefest moment cast a glance at a nurse’s bosom and a romantic thought flits across the brain for a nanosecond, or he/she will suddenly think about some old Ben Casey episode with the symbols birty, death, male, female, infinity, or if he/she is an atheist the though may pass through their mind “suppose there IS a God” or if he/she is a believer the thought may pass through their mind “suppose there IS NO GOD” and so on and so forth. Fenton seems to often give a good answer. Fenton is fond of systems like Taoism. Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, and various other isms may not be characterized with Lair’s favorite “invisible friend” criticism. The most telling thread that I found the other day was from a professional mathematician in India. Now few Americans can truly understand what daily life is like in India. But there are so many scientists and mathematicians who are deeply into Vedanta and vegetarianism and a host of other “religious” trappings. There are Muslims in India who celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi. The very essence of syncretism (practicing a mixture of religions) and pluralism demonstrates our multi-mind plurality.

Dawn: well “I want to learn to think Like GOD” thats albert einstein, you swallow that.

we cannot KNOW whether GOD exists because all KNowing inherently consists of previous experience and since we cannot have experienced GOD , we cannot say that GOS exists but we also cannot say that GOD does NOT exist. and thats KANT so you and DAwkins can swallow THAT.

we could sit here all day and argue trhe existence of GOD, and it doesnt make a damned bit of difference because neither can be proven.

we exist, whatever source that brought us here, we all came from the same source. and we are all bound by the same laws of natural law, and THAT is therefore OUR god. if you want to believe theres no consciousness behind it, its your choice but dont fool yourself into thinking that your way is any more scientific than believing there IS consciousness behind it. because thats FALSE.

science measures measurable pehnomoneon, GOD is NOT a measurable phenomenon, any more than freedeom or justice, or time. its is all subjective to the person experiencing it.

William: I have come to the conclusion that every educated and rational person must describe themselves as “agnostic.” No one can prove that there is no such thing as a God or a transcendent intelligence. No one can prove that some sort of God exists. Reasonable people realize that they are in the position of agnosticism. But religiosity, reverence, awe, the sense of the numinous, as well as superstition are inherent in human behavior. I have listened to interviews of Communist Chinese students who speak with an almost religious sense of awe about party leaders and the Communist doctrine and then speak of the West as fallen demons. One teenage Chinese party member said that teens in the West only think about sex and drugs and filthy things while she is pure and only things about the welfare of society and the values of the Communist party. It was obvious to me that she was reverent and deferential to her ideology in exactly the same manner that religious people venerate statues or icons or altars or a printed copy of the Bible or Qur’an.

Dawn: and I will agree with you to the bitter end william, its the only intelligent answer possible.

William: If I were to tell you of one scientist or mathematician tell me that he/she saw elephants flying through the clouds you would tell me that surely they are mad and their scientific endeavors are worthless. But if I told you that they were relating a DREAM that they had then you would think nothing unusual. The point is we ALL sleep and we ALL dream even if some of us never remember the dreams and dreams are filled with insane irrational images and fantasies, and yet THAT TOO is part of the human mind.

Lair has confided to me that most of what I write goes right over his head and he assumes it is some kind of “mumbo jumbo” that we intellectuals say from time to time to impress each other.

I did not quote Lair accurately. I paraphrased what I remember him saying. Here is what he actually said: “Most of what you write goes right over my head or my eyes glaze over. It does not communicate anything whatsoever to me. It is intellectual blah-blah, meant, I suppose, to show superiority of intellect. ”

The truth be told, I have very low self-esteem. I feel like an intellectual failure. I am definitely a failure in life in many ways.

I do sense that some people will not understand something I post while others will. I have one friend that I like and their most frequent post is to say “so and so is an @ss hat” … now that is not the way I choose to express myself, but I just overlook it and wait for something which is “common ground” for us to discuss.

Dawn: william, most people dont WANT to understand the world, and most people are too busy to waste their time trying to understand the world, the more you understand the less you have in common with those who dont understand, its the price of understanding.

I understand how you feel, and in fact, I feel the same. you thought I was talking crap the first time I posted in your thread too, but its just because we both have different means of garnerring understanding, and unless we have knowledge of the same sources theres going to be an element of confusionm present.

as KANT says nothing can be perceived without some prior knowledge to make it perceivable to the perceiver. Its ok, you make sense to me.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: