Thanks to Appreciative Reader for defending the scientific worldview

There are three thousand word comments that deserve trashing. Then there are comments of the same length that deserve fervent applause from those of us who respect reality, truth, evidence, reason, and the scientific worldview.

That's why I'm sharing another lengthy comment from "Appreciative Reader" below. 

As you'll see if you read the following comment published on my Why neither unicorns nor God are to be believed in post, Appreciative Reader absolutely demolishes the religious perspective of another commenter, Spence Tepper.

If this were a boxing fight, it'd be called after the second or third round because too much damage is being done to the weaker opponent. 

Or, as Appreciative Reader points out below, the referee would warn Tepper to stop constantly retreating and refusing to engage in a fair fight. I share the frustration of Appreciative Reader, because I frequently encounter the same tactic by religious believers.

You point out the absurdity of a belief. You ask for evidence in support of it. You question why anyone should take that belief seriously when there's no reason to do this. You say that if this religious tenet is to be accepted, then why not accept every other unproven notion offered up by the thousands of world religions.

And the response is... ducking and weaving. Running away. Failing to engage. Spouting nonsense words that mean nothing but are filled with the fire and fury of a threatened religious believer.

So I'm grateful for what Appreciative Reader has done in his repeated attempts to get Tepper, and others, to respond in a reasonable fashion to the nonsensical world view of those who cling to beliefs that have no foundation in reality, yet comfort the believer and so are very difficult for the religious person to give up.

Hey, I've been there and done that. I spent many years, decades actually, clinging to a religious worldview. It met needs that I had at the time, so my mind wouldn't allow me to see the many contradictions, absurdities, and plain weird ideas promulgated by the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

It's a lonely task, doing what Appreciative Reader has done in his comment exchanges with Spence Tepper. Religiosity is the dominant worldview of most people in the world. Science, reason, open debate -- these are under challenge. 

Recently I read that about 50% of people in the United States either believe that President Biden wasn't elected in a free and fair election, and/or believe that Covid vaccines aren't effective. Both beliefs are false. The evidence is overwhelming that Biden won fairly and that Covid vaccines are effective.

Thus the Appreciative Reader - Spence Tepper debate isn't just about religious belief. It also is about the danger of large numbers of people believing stuff that clearly isn't true, going so far as to stage an insurrection at our nation's capitol in an effort to keep Trump as president, and Republicans urging people to not get a Covid vaccine, thereby causing needless illness and death.

Reality is too important to discard. Thank you, Appreciative Reader, for standing up for truth and the scientific worldview. I've been inspired by your comments and I know that others have been also, even if you mostly get responses from religious believers.

Here's the comment from Appreciative Reader.

Spence, I’m sorry to say our discussion has devolved to bizarre levels now. I really hadn’t expected you of all people to descend to desperately clutching at straws in this manner.

You keep ignoring the points I raise, and insist on straddling your soapbox instead. You keep conflating the actual conduct of scientific experiments with a scientific worldview. You keep ignoring the implications of the burden of proof. You betray (or at least, you project) zero understanding of the entire discussion around the functional equivalence of “accepting” and “not-rejecting”.

In discussing the dragon/unicorn thought experiment, you keep repeating you will try to find out more about the beast, despite having been told at the outset that it is impervious to all means of detection available to today’s science and technology; and you keep veering off into non sequiturs, like saying you’ll try to test whether the person making the (dragon/unicorn/religious/mystical) claim is of sound mind.

I don’t see this discussion really going anywhere, what it is doing is lurchingly retracing its own already trod steps, but still, I’ll try to address here, in one single post, the issues you raise in your last three or four posts that you addressed to me. The result is likely to be a lengthy post, I’m afraid, and so as not to make it even longer I’ll simply title out the main themes that you’ve written on (and that I’ll respond to), rather than actually quoting your words.

DISPROVING SPECIFIC GOD IDEAS : YOUR CHALLENGE

This is the part that I find truly bizarre. The part where you keep insisting, in the face of all rationality and reason, that no god ideas have ever been disproved by science, despite clear instances of such having been promptly presented.

Recall two of the most conspicuous contortions you had to resort to in the course of your last few comments.

First, when in response to your challenge I presented you with two specific examples of God ideas having been disproven, you turned around to demand of me how I know those are real Gods. Can you really, even now, not see the absurdity of even asking that question?

Some theist has presented very specific God ideas, and I have shown how a scientific worldview clearly refutes those ideas; whereupon what do you do? You demand of ME how I can be sure those are valid God ideas!! (And, when the entirely bizarre nature of the thought process that can think up this objection is pointed out to you, what do you do? You simply ignore it, and move on to talk of other things.)

And second, you then do the typical goalpost-shifting thing that theists seem to specialize in.

I’m going to address your “challenge” one more time now. Despite the fact that I’ve done it twice already, and despite having little real hope of piercing through any better this time. (And all we have on wager is your clear admission that your challenge has been met.)

ONE: The thurder-and-lightning producing Gods, Thor, and Odin, and Zeus, and Indra, and Varun, and whoever and whatever else that specializes in this superpower. Modern science has shown us the exact mechanism of these phenomena, and that mechanism has no need at all for any God entities.

(That is, to spell it out, we have no need to resort to hypothesize Gods in order to understand those phenomena as well as we do, ergo following Occam's Razor we have no need to posit any Gods, and we can safely not accept, or reject, the God hypothesis as superfluous and unnecessary in respect of those specific phenomena, and therefore those specific Gods.)

Further, we do have a means of directly falsifying the god claim as well. Believers in these Gods claimed that propitiating them by praying to them and sacrificing to them can help turn these elements in one’s favor, and angering them attracts their wrath.

No one does that these days, and yet we are not visited by some terrible wrath of these Gods, as represented by these elements wreaking some terrible disaster on us. To not see this as debunking is, I’m sorry to say, to harbor, despite an education in science, a decidedly irrational and anti-scientific worldview.

TWO: The God of the Bible, that people did believe in literally in vast numbers in times past, and in not negligible numbers even today. Showing that the creation myth presented in the Bible is erroneous, by showing that the mechanism of how the universe arose has no need of invoking a God, is enough to debunk this claim. Directly showing that the age of the universe is far older than claimed by the alleged Word of God, as recorded in the Bible, is direct falsification as well.

THREE: The sun-god in Norse legends that is driven in a chariot by two horses (or, in other versions, by one horse, whatever). As well as the sun-god of the Aztecs, that, unless propitiated with human sacrifice, will not appear to us again and will abandon us to eternal darkness and death. The "how" of the sun apparently going around the earth has been explained clearly enough by science, and none of that has need to invoke either Gods or chariots or horses.

And the claim has been directly falsified as well, because no one sacrifices human hearts to the sun-god any more, and yet the sun rises in the east every single day..

Spence, you aren’t by any chance spoofing me, are you? Pulling my leg, playing a trick on me, by putting me in the distinctly ridiculous position of solemnly holding forth on these elementary things in all earnest like this? If that is the case, then I applaud you, because you did take me in completely so far, and even now I have no more than a very tentative suspicion that your arguments might be no more than a practical joke. So that if the idea was to play a practical joke on me, you’ve been entirely successful.

To claim in all seriousness that your challenge hasn’t been met, despite these clear examples having been presented (and plenty more can easily be thought of), is to either be completely oblivious of the implications of a scientific worldview, or, if that is not the case, then it is to be literally delusional. Unless of course this is all a joke.

In claiming that your challenge hasn't been met satisfactorily, the arguments you employ are the equivalent of asserting that science cannot debunk the claim that the moon is made of cheese. Sure, you won’t find actual peer-reviewed papers, describing elaborate experiments conducted, that clearly tell you that the moon isn’t made of cheese.

But to latch on to that as some kind of justification for a worldview that claims that science does not directly refute clearly and DEMONSTRABLY absurd claims like that the moon is made of cheese (or that the sun is drawn around the earth by horses, and will abandon us unless we sacrifice to it; or that lightning and storms are caused by gods who will wreak destruction on us unless they are propitiated; or that the world was created six thousand years ago by a psychotic but immensely powerful god that will annihilate us and/or consign us to hell if we don’t abide by his commandments and his prophets’ and son’s instructions) is to have simply seen and maybe even to have participated in science, but to have come away with no more than a cargo-cult impression of what science actually is and what a scientific worldview actually entails.

WHAT YOU SEE AS THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN ATHEISM (OR AT LEAST, IN THIS PARTICULAR VERSION OF ATHEISM)

Let me quote you first on this, before likewise enumerating my response :

“Here is the fundamental flaw. I'll state it in three ways.
1. What science hasn't tested science cannot comment upon.
2. Evidence that has not been gathered is not non-existent.
3. The unknown is not non - existent. It is the basis of scientific inquiry.”

(1.) “Science” does not comment on anything. People do.

The scientific method is a tool that people use to suss out what is reasonable to believe, and what not. Thereafter, it is people who arrive at positions on different claims and issues.

We’ve been through this already, the difference between the scientific method and a scientific worldview. You’ve ignored that last discussion, and gone on with your inner monologue without referencing our past discussion on this.

To imagine that a scientific worldview entails referencing the scientific method only in such instances where there has been some formal scientific study, and in everything else either believing any random thing that one likes, or else not taking any position at all, is to arrive at some cargo-cult version of “science”.

The core of the scientific method is that one will not accept any hypothesis that one cannot back up with evidence. Any position --- and that includes the God question as well (or at least, some versions of it, that is to say, some specific abstract God-ideas) --- that cannot admit of direct evidence, it is simply not “scientific” to believe at all.

It is not that no evidence equals we have carte blanche to believe whatever we want, or that we must necessarily suspend any conclusion at all (which suspension of all conclusion is in practice sometimes/often simply not even feasible, in any case). It is that no evidence equals we have no reason to hold that position as true, no reason to accept it.

(2) “Evidence” refers to some support for some proposition or some hypothesis. Therefore, if evidence has not been “gathered”, it is literally not evidence at all.

Sure, whether we self-important humans catalog something or cogitate on something does not in any way impact the underlying reality. That is understood, obviously. Not once have I suggested otherwise.

The point is, in as much as evidence has not been “gathered”, it may perhaps exist, but in as much as we do not yet know of it, it is entirely and wholly fallacious to base any conclusion on such evidence. In as much as some conclusion that you seek to support via such not-yet-gathered evidence is fallacious, such conclusion we are constrained to not accept, that is to say, we reject such conclusion.

This is entirely straightforward. And your views on this are entirely mistaken.

(3) Similar to above. Agreed, the unknown is not non-existent, and, rather than saying “it is the basis of scientific enquiry”, I think it may be more precise to phrase it thus, “It can be the basis of scientific enquiry if we should choose to make it so.”

Anyway, minor nitpicking aside, I have not once suggested otherwise. But the question isn’t what does exist; the question is what do we believe, what belief or claim do we accept. If something is unknown then we can’t go around believing random things about it.

(Which, mind you, is what you are doing. You’re claiming there are no grounds to do science on God. And you take that as carte blanche to go ahead and believe in God --- which you have every right to --- but where you err is in claiming that such an attitude comports with a scientific worldview. The fact is it doesn’t.)

Nor is it that what is technically unknown, as far as formal science, we will necessarily suspend all judgment on. That science hasn’t explicitly considered and tested whether the moon is made of cheese, or whether the sun is drawn by horses around the earth, or whether the sun will not rise unless propitiated with sacrifice, does not mean that we will necessarily suspend all judgment on such.

(And I don’t mean idiosyncratic personal judgment, I mean a conclusion that comports with a scientific worldview.)

We know the approximate composition of the moon, so we can certainly conclude that it isn’t made of cheese. And what is more such conclusion will be fully in agreement with a scientific worldview, even though there are no papers published specifically on the subject, “Is the moon made of cheese?” Ditto questions about whether the sun is a God that is drawn by horses around the sun, or whether the universe was created by a psychotic and decidedly unpleasant God six thousand years ago.

Those aren’t flaws in atheism, as you claim they are. They are flaws in your reasoning and your own POV.

YOUR POST ON THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE OF “NOT ACCEPTING” VIS-À-VIS REJECTING A CLAIM

What you argue here is no more than yet more contortions, Spence.

That the hypothesis is not accepted (and, for that matter, not rejected either) by the people carrying on the experiment and for the duration of the experiment and analysis, that hardly needs pointing out. In any case, it *has* already been pointed out, more than once, in a separate context, which would be the context of distinguishing between the POV appropriate to the scientist researching some specific hypothesis, vis-à-vis the POV appropriate for everyone else. That is an out and out non sequitur as far as this particular discussion.

Should the experiment not bear the results the hypothesis predicts, then in the setting aside of the hypothesis there is no universal distinction between “not accepting” and “rejecting”, as you suggest. To speak of this in the context that you do is to not understand what was said at all, not even a little bit (hint, repeated for the third or fourth time already: refer back to Osho Robbins’s analogy of “Not guilty” vis-à-vis “Innocent”); or else it is to resort to deliberate disingenuity.

Here’s a concrete example that will make the distinction clear, using the overtly formal scientific setting that you seem to imagine imparts some especial sanctity that everyday examples don’t.

(It doesn’t, actually, and everyday examples are equally as effective, provided you grok the actual underlying implications of the scientific method. Nevertheless, I’ll try to accommodate your apparent fetish for examples from formal science.)

Contrast the Ether theory with the String Theory. The former is an example of a hypothesis rejected, while the latter is an example of a hypothesis not (yet) accepted. The experimental results in the case of the former clearly refuted the prediction that the ether theory had thrown up. It clearly showed that, rather than there showing up a difference in the speed of light, instead the speed of light remained the same.

That is direct refutation, leading to rejection. As far as the latter, there has been no direct refutation, at all, so far. But nor has there been any evidence that bears it out, no evidence that justifies bypassing Occam’s Razor. In as much as no evidence has been found, the theory is not accepted.

(Disclaimer: This example focuses only on the difference between “not accepting” and “rejecting”, and not on the actual promise that string theory holds out, or the fact that people are still working on string theory while no one works on ether theory. Don’t focus on that part of it, I clearly recognize that in that specific respect this analogy/example is imperfect. That string theory is not, as a result of yielding no evidence, tossed right out the window as the ether theory has been, is because it is early days still, and because it otherwise explains our observations so very completely. No doubt if in another fifty or seventy years string theory still does not bear out any evidence [that isn’t explained equally well by other, simpler hypotheses], so as to justify its far more complex structure, then it might be relegated to the museum or the trashcan as well, conceivably.)

Come on, man. Do I really need to spell this out like this all over again in words of one syllable? Have my many posts on this, already presented in this thread, as well as the many discussions elsewhere (including one whole thread we’d both participated in that was on this very subject) not made the distinction between the two amply clear, that you should compose the post you did just preceding, that betrays zero understanding of the difference between the two (and indeed between soft atheism and hard atheism)?

You know what it looks like to me? You’re not actually reading my posts. You’re basically focused on your soapboxing, while going through the motions of responding to my posts, all with the aim of somehow passing off your theistic worldview as somehow not anti-scientific.

Otherwise you wouldn’t so blatantly misread and/or misrepresent this part so completely so late into this discussion; and you wouldn’t keep on repeatedly and totally missing the point of the unicorn/dragon thought experiment (and keep raising tangential non sequiturs around it rather than actually addressing the meat of the argument presented via that construct); and you wouldn’t keep raising these wild objections to these very obvious and simplistic God-ideas having been clearly debunked by science (even as some more subtle God-ideas admittedly remain beyond the reach of such easy and direct debunking).

Apologies, Spence, if some of what I’ve said here seems rude. I really truly hope this thread will not sour the general regard we have for each other.

But … how do you even begin to hold a coherent conversation with someone who insists, in the teeth of all reasonable argument, that such blatant irrationalities like the Olympian Gods and the Aztec Sun God and Biblical God and the Norse Gods as literally depicted --- as well as, presumably, the moon made of cheese --- are not ruled out by a scientific worldview?

With someone who, at the end of a detailed discussion (indeed, more than one detailed discussion) around “rejecting” and “not accepting” (and soft atheism and hard atheism) comes out with an elaborate post that betrays either zero understanding of what was being said all along, either that or else it deliberately seeks to misdirect?

I’m going to walk away now from this discussion, but without the hope that I’d held yesterday of arriving in future at closer agreement and better understanding, because how on earth do you even address this bizarre state of affairs, where on one hand there is familiarity with (some of) the techniques of science, but on the other hand there is complete cluelessness as to its implications?

And I’m going to walk away more resolutely this time than I was able to yesterday, because although it started out promisingly enough, what this discussion has now devolved into is an apparently endless exchange of comments that is neither illuminating nor, at this point, particularly pleasurable. Again, my apologies.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

Well, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
The entire discussion might have reached an understanding had AR, and I guess Brian, agreed to honor and recognize the basics of the scientific method.

Instead they continue to ignore the very precepts of the scientific method and retreat into their labels of bizarre and ridiculous, which are not actually factual arguments.

And do not address the questions I have raised directly.

Let me point out examples from above.

I had written
"“Here is the fundamental flaw. I'll state it in three ways.
1. What science hasn't tested science cannot comment upon.
2. Evidence that has not been gathered is not non-existent.
3. The unknown is not non - existent. It is the basis of scientific inquiry.”

And the response?

"(1.) “Science” does not comment on anything. People do."

This is simply not addressing the fact that having zero scientific testing, and zero experiments designed to test a hypothesis, it is not logical to claim there is no evidence. You will always have zero scientific evidence if you don't conduct a scientific experiment.

Because there is no actual hard scientific experiments designed to test the hypothesis that God exists. Not one. I have challenged AR to offer one, send us the citation. Instead he attacks ancient mythology. But no hard science experiment in any scientific journal, peer reviewed and approved.

That's all I asked for, gentleman. You need not argue any more. You can win providing this evidence.

But because there is no hard scientific research, at least any they will acknowledge, that clearly disproves the existence of God, they must resort to rationalizations around common data that has nothing to do with a scientific investigation into the theory that there is a God, with a testable hypothesis peer reviewed and agreed upon.

My challenge was to cite one. Wouldn't it be easier to do that rather than retreat into pointing fingers at ancient myths proclaiming "Look how wrong they were".

That is not a scientific experiment, with accepted scientific control, around a hypothesis the peer reviewed community of scientists agree as a reasonable operationalization of the theory that God exists.

All you have been asked to do is provide evidence that meets that very requirement so often touted here as the basis to discredit false claims.

So as you have failed to meet that criteria, what are we to think?

Your claims are false?

No. That's not how science works. That's how argumentation works.

Gentleman, you aren't wrong. But you have not done your science.

We cannot accept your theory that God doesn't exist on scientific grounds, because you have zero scientific evidence.

We do accept your belief that there is no God as your personal belief and just as sound as mine or anyone else's...because there really is no hard scientific evidence to support or reject any belief about God. It hasn't been tested yet.

And your personal evidence is no god. Unfortunately other people have a different personal experience. But that are no more or less valid in the absence of hard scientfic evidence. However, it just so happens, you also have none.

Instead my dear colleagues, AR and Brian Ji, you are resorting to shifting positions.
Now, instead of acknowledging they cannot meet the requirements of science, they have invented a new term "Scientific Worldview'" which conveniently, doesn't require meeting the rigors of science.

It only requires pointing out how absurd some people's ideas are, compared to their view of evidence and reality.

And once again this speaks to the provincial mindset that is more than happy to judge others with very little information or interest in investigation. Because while you are investigating, you aren't judging, you aren't concluding. You are in the midst of your investigation.

They reject others' world views because it isn't part of their experience or knowledge.

But that isn't scientific at all. And this is because science is seeking to find out about the unknown. Not reject it. Science acknowledges it has no evidence about a subject at first. And then rather than claim that therefore that subject can't exist science does something quite different than this false "scientific worldview"

Science actually explores things it initially knows nothing about. In contrast to the "scientific worldview' science is drawn to the unknown, sciences wealth comes entirely from investigating the unknown. Not dismissing the unknown as non-existant. Science discovers the unknown, rather than rejecting it out of hand.

And usually in science, rather than reaching a conclusion about a big question, science uncovers a truth about a small question that happens to raise more questions. In doing this, science proves over and over again that a conclusion in the absence of scientific investigation is ignorant. And what science uncovers eventually proves those conclusions drawn in ignorance are wrong.

Now it would have been easier to not only acknowledge that this "scientific worldview" isn't actually science.

And then to take the next step and own up to the fact that it isn't science at all. There is no experimentation, no effort to peer review, no effort to investigate.

Nowhere is this provincialism more evident than in their misunderstanding of the truths science has already begun to uncover in these myths from ancient history.

They denegrate these as false and ignorant.

A scientist would try to uncover the reasons why these claims were made. That's what scholars have been doing for years in their investigations around these ancient myths.

And fortunately, a few scientists and investigators have come up with a theory, which was presented earlier:

These myths, have fall into repetitive themes of the hero, the villain, the wise sage, and others; the story of battle against ignorane, triumph over self, and then over adversity, and then the integration of these all, our dark side and our light, all repeat themselves in cultural myths over and over again in cultures independent from one another over eons of time. And even today, knowing these are myths, our superhero stories continue to resonate within us. Because, the theory goes, these themes, symbolically, are built into us.

Physiological Psychology, now called Neuroscience, has already demonstrated that the brain has its own internal symbolic language. The brain has been developed over many evolutions throughout the history of animal life, and that is a 1.2 Billion year history, according to science. It is a fabulous museum of ancient functions, ancient artifacts. And most of the human brain is unexplained and uneplored.

Rather than rejoice in this incredible scientific journey, my colleagues smear it with derogatory labels, in defense of something they call a scientific worldview but which is hardly scientific.

Why? Because science is based on exploration of the unknown. But the view they hold is something different. A view that constrains reality to only what is known. a view that rejects what is unknown as non-existant.

A position that supports a version of Atheism, certainly not the one based on science.

And a position which attempts to dismiss the very foundation of science:

The unknown exists, and in order to comment on it, it must be scientifically investigated.
No one can comment on the unknown and claim their speculations have any basis in science, until science has tested that speculation as a hypothesis in a controlled series of experiments.

I don't think this is bizarre at all. In fact I find the denial of this quite telling.
We are seeing a position being clung to which is illogical. And I suggest something else is at work here that we are not seeing, because what we are seeing is a denial of hard science in the defence of unscientific rationalizations about the unknown..

I know AR and Brian are absolutely sincere in what they believe. And I have great affection for them, and their love of Truth. They believe they are being "scientific".

And yet they cannot seem to agree to the basic requirements of scientific inquiry and scientific conclusion I have repeatedly laid out.

Gentleman, your issue is not with me.

It is with science.

Now, beyond that, everyone's system of belief, in the absence of scientific evidence, is as good as any other, so we should pick the system of belief that appeals to us. Mine is a system of investigation and exploration.

[Spence Tepper]

Now one more point about the abuse of poor Ockham's razor.

AR and Brian have used this as an argument against the belief in God. Even though it was originally proposed by a friar as an argument for God.

They argue that we don't need the dynamic of God to explain how reality works. Of course the fallacy of this argument is that we don't understand how most of reality works yet.

Abusing poor Ockham this way isn't science. It's argumentation. Not even logic, just rhetoric based on a misunderstanding: A grossly warped interpretation of Ockham's razer as a rough guideline within the actual context of conducting science experiments, not some law to decide truth without scientific experimentation.

We can actually look to the results of science to see if Ockham's razor has any evidence to support it.

From Wikipedia we read that Ockham's razer is only a guideline to simplify hypotheses testing, as part of conducting scientific investigation and not a statement about the highly complex and counter-intuitive objective world we live in.

"Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity",[1][2] sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one."[3] The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c.  1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian who used a preference for simplicity to defend the idea of divine miracles. This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,[4] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions."

"Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[5][6] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since failing explanations can always be burdened with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they tend to be more testable.[7][8][9]"

From the above," Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result;"

It is merely a tool to develop the easiest hypothesis to test, or falsify. A simple one. But also from above this preference for simplicity should not be used to pick one hypothesis over another. And certainly not to draw conclusions about reality.

Now what has science demonstrated about reality?

Actual scientific results prove over and over again that the world is much more complex than we understood. Hypotheses often fail leading to new hypotheses of new laws, new principles and new properties: More complexity, not less.

Reality isn't simple. It is more complex than we know and with each scientific investigation, gets more complicated.

Start with the simplest explanation but test it. The failure of that test will lead you to another, more complex hypothesis. But keep the next more complex hypothesis as simple as possible.

The easiest one to test then, will be the simplest that can be created. It won't, however, be simple.

Now AR and others abuse this principle suggesting we should use it to to decide what is true. Without any actual testing. That's false. It's an abuse of the utility of this guideline.

In science it is only used to help determine, in a highly complex interaction, what the simplest of these complex alternatives to test.

Testing under controlled conditions is still required. And with each failed hypotheses, chosen as the simplest, science has edged into understanding a mind bogglingly complex reality.

So to adapt what Yogi Bera said, predictions are difficult, especially about reality.

We don't use Ockham's razor to tell us what is likely to be real. That's been disproven by science. We use it to create the simplest hypothesis to test. And when that fails, as is often the case, we must acknowldge new principles, particles, dynamics must be at work. And create the simplest more complex hypothesis to test.

[umami]

Ironically, Shadowfaxism is the world's fastest growing new religion.

[Sonia]

Ironically, Shadowfaxism is the world's fastest growing new religion.

Posted by: umami | July 23, 2021 at 10:03 PM

I know, right? It’s so crazy. Tolken and Hubbard—amazing what a book can spawn.

Gosh, this banter between Appreciative Reader and Spence has really helped me to see the light (forgive my religious reference). But it’s just so illuminating how through the Scientific Method I no longer have to believe in God. I’m finally freed from the belief in life after death. Whew, what a burden that was! Now I can live the rest of my microscopic existence (compared to the Universe of things) in the the freedom of such ludicrous dreams. It’s truly liberating to know that when I gasp my final breaths, I’ll simply cease to exist and my lifeless corpse will be testament to the decaying nature of flesh and blood.

Ahh… I shall bask in the sun today and give thanks to myself for my wisdom. I might even start a blog so I can help others open their eyes and truly understand that this is all there is. This world, this life, the plight of humanity is simply the result of nothing “purposeful”.

I praise myself for being able to see the truth so clearly. Yes, in a few years I will become one with the earth as if I never existed at all.

Maybe I’ll start a church for atheists… 🤔

Yess!!! That is it! That’s my true calling! I can serve humanity well by assuring them that their short little lives have no “higher” purpose. The infinite universe laughs at our insignificance in the grand scheme of time. From dust to dust (the Bible was right about one thing).

Now I’m going to spread the good news! I will share with seekers the shining truth that when we sit in a room alone, we Truly are alone!

Praise be to the Grand Scientific Method!

No, wait, Praise be to Me!!

[💜💜--777--💜💜]

WHAT A DESPAIRATION

Quote of the Day
"Intellect goes as far as the threshold but cannot enter the house. "
— Shams e-Tabrizi —
--777--

[🌺🌺. -- Glorious 777. -- 🌺🌺]

Re-reading I see AR's text is addressed <90 IQ individuals

These comparisons with archaic thought systems
Why not take Rumi , Buddha or even me
Even Professor David Lane couldn't proceed

🌺🌺. -- Glorious --777-- 🌺🌺

[Appreciative Reader]

Thank you ever so much, Brian, for your kind words. Coming from you, they mean a lot.

Incidentally, I don’t see this discussion as any kind of a contest at all. Just an exchange of views is all it is, and all I’m looking for is to enrich and clarify my own understanding of “life, the universe, and everything”, that’s all. Although the discussion was disappointing in some ways, but I thank Spence for taking the time and effort to share his views with me.

You’re right about one thing, though. Speaking in general terms, and without at this time referring back to my discussion with Spence, it is actually a fact that in discussions with theists (as well as with believers in all other kinds of woo), one does come across a whole arsenal of side-stepping tactics, with a fair bit of gaslighting thrown in as well, which very often tends to catch one off guard, given that that is not what one expects at all. And while there may be individual instances of deliberate disingenuity, certainly, but by and large these seem to happen spontaneously and inadvertently, with no intentional dishonesty involved, which makes the whole thing very puzzling indeed. When one has no other experience to draw on other than one’s own, then one’s natural reaction is to doubt oneself and one’s own conclusions. Thanks for clearly speaking up on this aspect of the business --- in general terms, I mean to say, and not in reference to this particular discussion.

The loneliness you speak of, that was another very insightful observation. It wouldn’t have occurred to someone who hasn’t themselves experienced this, in this specific context I mean to say, so I can guess that you speak from your own experience. In fact, I hadn’t myself thought of this in these terms myself, but when I read your words, I realized what you were speaking of were my own thoughts and feelings, written out even before I myself was aware of them. (I can’t recall the exact words or who said them, but in general terms I remember reading of this as one interesting take on the nature of a writer’s words, and why they resonate so well with their readers.) Although I hadn’t thought of this in these specific terms before this, but your words made me realize that this “loneliness”, in this specific context, applies as much, and more, to one’s real-life interactions as well. All of which gives me another reason to thank you back for your clear and unambiguous words here.

It is humbling for me, Brian, to hear you speak of drawing inspiration from my words. No doubt you are only being kind, but even so I appreciate the sentiment and your words, more than words can express.

[Appreciative Reader]

“... I know AR and Brian are absolutely sincere in what they believe. And I have great affection for them, and their love of Truth...”

…….Thank you, Spence, for those sentiments. Likewise.

(That is, while your regard for Brian is obvious and doesn’t need spelling out, and for obvious reasons; but I’m glad that our disagreements haven’t soured the regard that I believe we have for each other.)

I continue to respect your vast experience and knowledge of things spiritual, as well as your general erudition and your generally insightful words. We’ve disagreed on this one specific issue, and I see that we continue to disagree over it, but I’m very gratified that there are no hard feelings. I should have been very sorry indeed had it been otherwise.

[Appreciative Reader]

“Tolken and Hubbard—amazing what a book can spawn …”

…….I can guess at the sentiments behind that comment, Sonia, and while I wish it had been otherwise, but I accept it for what I suppose it is; but I cannot imagine any way at all to explain that particular association. If you must think of other instances analogous to Dianetics, then surely the Book of Mormon, or the Quran, or indeed the Bible, would have been far more obvious choices?

I’m sure you’ve read Tolkien, or at least seen the movies. The only thing I drew on from him was that marvelously evocative name he gave to Gandalf’s steed, that’s all. The poor man can hardly be blamed for having “spawned” that thought experiment; that “blame” is more correctly laid at Carl Sagan’s door.

[Appreciative Reader]

“Re-reading I see AR's text is addressed 90 IQ individuals

These comparisons with archaic thought systems
Why not take Rumi , Buddha or even me ...”

-------

Hello, 777, old friend.

I agree, those are very simplistic conceptions of God, and to generalize from them doesn’t do justice to other, far more subtle conceptions of God. In fact, I readily agree that not all God ideas admit of direct debunking or disproof, and hard atheism is not a rational position with respect to those more sophisticated ideas. (And hence Huxley’s agnosticism, and hence soft atheism.)

As for actual spiritual experiences, those --- taking them at face value --- are a whole separate thing altogether, provided one does not extrapolate from them to work up extravagant conceptual worldviews that are not rationally defensible.

Spence had asked me to bring up instances of God ideas that science has successfully debunked, and it was in that specific context that I brought those examples up.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"We’ve disagreed on this one specific issue, and I see that we continue to disagree over it, but I’m very gratified that there are no hard feelings. I should have been very sorry indeed had it been otherwise."

How can there be anything but growing respect? It is one thing to allow an exposition of one's own views. But entirely another thing to show equal time to the opposing position.

This comes from a basic respect for Truth as always a possibility outside our current thinking.

And it shines through in your and Brian Ji's comments.

Yes I have a different perspective. I've had different training, conditioning and life experiences. They may enlighten, but they also constrain.

But if anyone values their opposition with the respect, even the humor, you and Brown have demonstrated in your sincere best to dismantle something you believe is wrong, I can't help but have growing affection for it.

The Spanish philosopher Unimuno, once wrote that it is the duty of a philosopher to forge ahead even to the discomfort and imposition of others, because the alternative is to allow others to suffer under the weight, isolation, and error of their ignorance. That respect of others through one's own persistance shines through in your comments, and Brian Ji's persistance in keeping this dialogue front and center for a while

I would only add that since we are all ignorant, stepping back to reconsider the words of our opponents can only be a learning opportunity for all of us.

And I'm happy to debate with others who honor that.

So, AR, while I disagree, I've learned some things, and walk away with a greater respect for you and Brian Ji.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote to 777 about my challenge to you...
"Spence had asked me to bring up instances of God ideas that science has successfully debunked, and it was in that specific context that I brought those examples up."

What I actually asked for was any hard scientific, ie, experimental test of the hypotheses of God in support of your view.

There is a lot of scientific data about our world, and a lot of ancient beliefs about God and our world which are not supported by modern science. Though a few ancient mystic remarks have turned out to be similar to recent scientific findings.

I was looking for any actual scientific experimental testing with a specific hypothesis testing for the existence of God under controlled conditions agreed upon by the scientific community.

That was actually the original challenge.

You had written
".................Firstly, "God" has indeed been tested, many many times, tested and found wanting. Every time science has effectively tested God and found Him wanting (more precisely, found him AWOL), his apologists have immediately redefined him as something subtler."

But while there is scientific evidence that counters ancient traditional beliefs, there has been no actual hypothesis testing in a formal controlled experiment.

Here was the original challenge I made...

" To test for God you would need a hypothesis that all agree to, and not only that, one that is actually connected to a Theory about who and what God is."

"Further, you would need a test that gives you experimental control over the variables."

"Claiming you have scientific results is a tall order. I hope you are ready to back up such a claim."

"Now, you have made a claim, that God has been tested scientifically, to the rigorous standards of today's science, the standards by which we define Science today (not the medieval science of the past or the more current fake news science)"

"I challenge you to provide evidence of your claim."

[Appreciative Reader]

"There is ... a lot of ancient beliefs about God ... which are not supported by modern science. "

.................I really don't want to get drawn back in into all of that all over again, Spence, for reasons already explained; but given what you yourself say here, unprompted, given what you yourself admit here: QED?!

(I've cut out some words and put in ellipses instead, in order to focus attention on that part of it, but I hope you will agree that this was no sleight of hand, and in the process I have not distorted your meaning at all, and nor have I taken anything out of context, right? That is, what that somewhat truncated version reads is no different than what your original words meant, except, like I said, focused to this one specific issue.)

I don't see that you can possibly raise any reasonable objection at all, Spence, except only as nitpick on specific phrasing. And to focus on a perceived linguistic nitpick with such energy and focus seems extremely curious, given that it changes nothing at all as far as the actual point being made. In any case, I'm afraid even as nitpick your objection doesn't quite work, given the "effectively" that you'll find in my words that you've quoted here.

.

Spence, you cannot possibly have any doubt at all about my broader meaning, and the implications of such; but should you wish, despite that, to continue to hold me, for reasons best known to you, to this pointless nitpick around the exact phrasing of what I'd said, then let me make doubly, trebly clear how even as nitpick your objection does not hold, at all, by spelling this out beyond any possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation:

Figuring out the explanation for the sun's apparent daily orbit around the earth was *in effect* to test for the Norse and Aztec sun gods, and to find them wanting, and AWOL. Likewise, when science explained thunder, it *effectively* disproved the thunder gods like Thor and Odin and Indra, it *effectively* tested those Gods and found them AWOL. Similarly, to have worked out what we know of how the universe came into being, and specifically the age of the universe, is to have effectively tested the God of the Bible, and to have found Him wanting, AWOL.

But here's what I can't help wondering:
Clearly even your nitpick is entirely baseless, as I've just now shown; but suppose I'd omitted to include that word "effectively" in the sentence I'd written there, and suppose your linguistic nitpick had in fact been valid (which in fact it isn't), so effing what? How does having scored a gotcha off a pointless nitpick --- not that you've done even that --- avail you anything at all? It would have taken nothing away from the point I was making; and it would have added nothing at all of any actual substance to your objections to my broader point. Why on earth did you expend so much time and energy on a trivial nitpick, on an entirely inconsequential linguistic "gotcha"? (And in any case, now that you --- hopefully --- see that even your nitpick has zero substance, is there anything still stopping you from conceding that the challenge has been met?)

[Brian Hines]

Spence, you should read your own comments for answers to your questions. Religions could be conducting research into their God hypotheses. Of course, there are thousands of religions, each with a different conception of God. That's why it isn't possible to test a single God hypothesis, because there isn't a single hypothetical God.

This hasn't happened for the reason you set forth in a recent comment:
-------------
"Hi Umamaj The standard of truth for religion is belief, not science. For science, belief emerges from fact. In Religion, no facts are needed except belief as the standard of truth. In the sub case of spirituality, it is corroborated and verified experience. A slightly lower standard than the hard sciences... In fact in the sciences this would be referred to as Quasi-Experimental design, or semi - experimental design. It's stronger than anecdotal accounts, and may be statistically significant, but often there is limited control over the variables."
-------------
So I'm perplexed why you want the scientific method applied to God, since you correctly say the standard of belief for religion is belief, not science.

Regarding experience, please explain how it is possible to corroborate and verify an experience. I assume you're referring here to an inner/mental/psychological experience within a religious believer's mind, not an outer experience of, say, going to church or visiting a holy place, which obviously could be verified with a camera.

How could an inner experience be corroborated and verified? Someone says they had a vision of God. How is it possible to determine whether that claim is truly about an objectively real God, or whether it is a claim about what their physical brain subjectively produced?

Just as there are thousands of different religions with different conceptions of God, there are countless (more or less) descriptions people have given of God, almost all different in some way. Christians have visions of Jesus, angels, and heaven, not, say, of an Indian guru believed to be God in Human Form.

Further, Appreciative Reader has done a fine job explaining how science has disproven many claims religions made about God. Like, a creator God. Or a God that answers prayers. Sure, religions, along with you, like to use the God of the Gaps argument: if something can't be explained currently, then God is the reason for it.

But this makes no sense, since God isn't an explanation either. It's just another way of saying "we don't know yet."

Lastly, science seeks to explain the nature of phenomena, things that are real. Atoms are real, so scientists have explored the nature of atoms and subatomic particles. Since you want science to investigate God, you'll need to come up with a testable God hypothesis. Like, those who have a vision of God or have come to know God have knowledge and/or capabilities that other people don't.

What is that knowledge? What are those capabilities? How is it possible to distinguish someone who knows God and someone who doesn't? This gets back to the notion of experience. If God is about beliefs, not facts, then what beliefs and accompanying inner experience distinguish a God-knower from a God-unknower? If there is no discernible difference, then this is evidence against God.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian
These are excellent questions!
They are great regardless of where anyone's beliefs are. They are universally strong and important questions! And they reflect your decades of experience with this subject.

You commented
"Religions could be conducting research into their God hypotheses."

And then you answered our own question. Religion's standard of Truth is not facts but faith.

Only scientists would be interested in hypothesis testing.

Even Atheists aren't terribly interested in hypothesis testing. Hence, I suppose why there hasn't been any to date.

But if anyone makes the claim that their conclusions are based on science, then that is the reason for my request for the science.

Now I realize the two meanings of that term. As a scientist, hard science means hypothesis testing.

To a lay person it just means the products of science, the data and understanding that accrues as a result of scientific investigation, which is always to answer a well defined question.

So someone could say they are basing their conclusions on science without the foggiest idea of how science is conducted.

Unfortunately scientific data can only be applied accurately to the hypotheses that the experiment was designed to test.

When lay people attempt to use the data generated by science without understanding what that data actually is and means, relative to the hypothesis and theory the experiment was testing, they often misunderstood and misuse the data. This happens all the time in politics, religion and philosophy discussions.

The results get twisted to defend an agenda.

To claim accurately, that you are using scientific data correctly to draw a conclusion, that would be only the conclusion of the experiment that generated the data.

Re the corroboration of experience, I can refer back to Joseph Campbell's research. He noted that many different cultures from different times and locations recorded myths and beliefs that had similar themes. These cultures had no means to communicate with one another. These records were independent corroborations of these similar themes.

They don't prove the myths are actually true. They are anecdotal evidence, independently corroborated, of similarities in the accounts suggesting and supporting a theory that something true and real is behind them. That could be a psychological truth. A psychological dynamic may have its basis in the architecture of the brain, or some other mechanisms that would generate similar myth creation. Establishing the dynamic as extant in various cultures that were independent of one another is one step towards uncovering the physical mechanics contributing to those similarly recorded cultural realities.

You state
"Lastly, science seeks to explain the nature of phenomena, things that are real. Atoms are real, so scientists have explored the nature of atoms and subatomic particles."

I would qualify this by stating that science seeks to explore the unknown dynamics behind measurable events. This may require hypothesizing the existence of new dynamics and new undetected events and a new means to measure them.

We can hypothesize the existence of atoms, but it isn't until there was a means to measure the effect of atomic particles and forces that anything about atoms could be confirmed, or disproven.

And once that began, the results taught us a lot of counter intuitive things that we are still learning about today, and that points to the likelihood there is even more we know nothing about yet.

You wrote "Since you want science to investigate God, you'll need to come up with a testable God"

Yes, any conclusion about any subject requires scientific investigation to meet the highest possible standards of objective truth.

My experiences leave me always wanting a means to establish what is really happening.

When I saw Gurinder turn into Maharaji in Fayetteville, I knew something was happening inside me. I tried to just take it in as an observer. But it happened. It was real in terms of my perception of it, my ability to scrutinize it in detail for several minutes, my moving around trying to get a different view, and there He remained as Maharaji for a few moments.

So now I'm burdened with that, and other experiences. And I hear a lot of explanations. But until someone replicates this under controlled conditions, and I can replicate it under such externally controlled conditions, that any group of scientists could recreate, no explanation is adequate.

The explanations become excuses people make for dismissing the event or for using it to flatter their own beliefs. Neither is truth.

I tried to explain to you why each of us are bound by the limits of our experience.

If you had seen what I have seen repeatedly you would demand a real answer and not an explanation, or dismiss it with some convenient explanation.

A religious explanation and a scientific sounding explanation are both not hard science. They aren't truth. They are both poor excuses.

Testing under controlled conditions is science.

[Sonia]

@AR,

I love Tolkein! It was just more a sarcastic joke about Shadofaxism. I was comparing it to Scientology. I would gladly join a Shadofaxist Church any day. Scientology is a different story. Scientology is beyond disturbing and yet, I have to say I would rather have gone through the horror of Scientology than RSSB. RSSB was a living hell for me.

[Sonia]

And I’m referring more to the experience of being a satsangi for 14 years. The current guru just had the great misfortune of inheriting his position and the unfortunate cowardice that has prevented him from speaking the truth.

[um]

@ Spence

>> If you had seen what I have seen repeatedly you would demand a real answer and not an explanation, or dismiss it with some convenient explanation.<<

Could you elaborate on this?
What do you mean here with "answer" and "explanation"

[um]

@ Sonia

>> Scientology is beyond disturbing and yet, I have to say I would rather have gone through the horror of Scientology than RSSB. RSSB was a living hell for me.<<

That is and bold thing to say .... what made you say this?

[Dungeness]

@ Brian : "Since you want science to investigate God, you'll need to come up with a testable God".

Many try. But how do you shoehorn a notion of God --so expansive and
ineffable-- into a testable framework? How do you describe what or who
he is? It's a fool's errand. The mystics simply say "neti, neti" (not this,
not that either).

So what is the answer? How do you grapple with the imponderable?
How do your subdue an immersive mind and its 24x7 stream of
random, uncontrollable thought? Why is the truth about who we
are and "why the Earth has called me to her arms", as Tagore
says? Why is truth always receding like an oasis in a desert?

The answers have to be found in consciousness itself... the portal
to all that exists "out there". Speculation, hypotheses, wild claims,
"proofs" are ubiquitous but always fail ultimately without a journey
to experience what's upstream behind that door.

The mystics hopefully point the way back.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
You ask
"But how do you shoehorn a notion of God --so expansive and
ineffable-- into a testable framework?"

Scientific experiments don't actually test for reality. They use existing measurable reality to test a theory about the invisible causes through one or more accepted hypotheses.

Science often doesn't measure directly the cause. Often the independent variable is invisible and unmeasureable.

Let's say I have no vision. I can only measure baseballs flying into the field by their impressions left on the grass, and the time when they touch the grass. I have a theory about who or what is hitting them..And that the balls get there by the action of a batter operating in the vicinity of home base.

I don't need to record the baseball hitter directly but can infer from the hard evidence that balls flew into the field from the batter's general vicinity during the time he was at bat. However, since the batter is our independent variable I need to either control when they are allowed on the field or find out from some other means when they are or aren't on the field. Of course I can use my measurements to infer when they must be on the field.

Science measures effects carefully and infers causes with statistical precision through repeated testing . Science is often unable to measure independent variables directly, but if science can't control the independent variable it does need some measure of its activation.

Since reality is all around us, a host of dependent variables are available.

But what is needed is an acceptable theory of what God is and then a testable hypothesis that would...

a. Be likely to occur if God is acting...
Not difficult...
b.Be likely not to occur if God isn't acting... A little tougher...
c. And be highly likely not to occur for any other reason. Very tough. Requires highly controlled lab conditions.

The hypotheses must follow from the theory and not the other way around. So we must start with a good definition of God before seeking out measures.

Mystics attempt to witness God and anecdotally have reported characteristics of God. For example they report God can be witnessed as a divine sound that made and keeps the entire creation in existence.

If the entire creation is the product of God actively every second, then God must be linked to all the things He touched, and all the things they touched.

Therefore he is must be measurable.

Let me summarize. If there is a divine creator, and this creation is the effect of God's work, he is casually linked to everything in creation and therefore his effect on this creation must be detectable and his /her effect measurable universally.

It is for us to tease out the echoes in order to move upstream to record or filter to measure the source.. For example the primal sound in its measurable frequency.

So for example I would speculate that if the theory is literally true, the entire creation can be sourced to a single frequency, and any effective sheilding from that frequency would cause something to cease to exist as a measurable entity.

[Spence Tepper]

How to test this?
I suggest quantum foam is a place to start. These particles are popping in and out of existence all the time. They become smooth until their distances get below a certain measure and then they become unstable, "foamy" and begin popping in and out of existence.

"The X-ray and gamma-ray data show that spacetime is smooth down to distances 1000 times smaller than the nucleus of a hydrogen atom."

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/nasa-telescopes-set-limits-on-spacetime-quantum-foam.html

If this distance were to be artificially set as the frequency of a beam of heavy particles that beam would draw other surrounding quantum foam particles to within that distance and we should see, hypothesis and theory being correct, a measurable distortion in space, time and matter.

[Dungeness]

@ Spence: "Let me summarize. If there is a divine creator, and this creation is the effect of God's work, he is casually linked to everything in creation and therefore his effect on this creation must be detectable and his/her effect measurable universally. "

The more interesting premise for an atheist/anti-theist though may be
the question of whether God exists at all. Why pursue experimentation
about unicorns and their fanciful powers he might well counter (even
if he's barely aware of his unstated prejudice). In any case, the results
will be endlessly arguable no matter what's found. No matter how many
hypotheses are tested and outcomes mulled, doubts will arise and be
voiced about their actual significance.

The journey into consciousness itself with the mystic promise of direct
perception will be more successful for most. You can jettison tiresome,
interminable, ultimately inconclusive testing which won't dent the rock
hard shell of our hidden prejudice anyway. You can experience improved
health and cognitive function too. You may even glean mystic insights
about human existence against what you imagine are long odds.

[🌺🌺. -- BE Glorious; there is no other way -- 🌺🌺.]

OMG
When serendipities play no roll
OMG

again
Great Great is HE by finding such a great great hiding place, so transparent

you all know what I mean

777

UM , I m sorry
You made me think about a lady that tested her dhyan capacity
by hanging Masters Portrait in the WC
Next She said to my wife : "What a Voyeur is HE "

I love you all. and will prove that !

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
You asked
"Why pursue experimentation
about unicorns and their fanciful powers he might well counter (even
if he's barely aware of his unstated prejudice)."

Science by its principles seeks to understand causes, and is willing to search in all sorts of places common rational people can hardly make sense of. Results are the end to opinions.

It is Inevitable that in the exploration of this reality, which is science 's function, the linkages between mystic and religious experience and this physical creation will be uncovered, explored, and finally proven.

Consciousness may turn out to be quite different from our common view. God will most certainly turn out to be different, but connected to the impressions of works from all ages.

And as with the discovery of sub atomic physics and micro biology, entire worlds we never knew about before are most likely to emerge.

[Glenn Borchardt]

Brian:
Keep up the great work. Readers should know that there have been numerous scientific tests of the god hypothesis. Prayer, for instance, always has failed rigorous tests. Your readers should be aware of our website (below), our Blog at http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/, and our books explaining the differences between science and religion:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOSfree ].

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk]

Glenn

[Sonia]

Well, when the Scientific method is applied to clinical trials the results are never 100%. It’s ridiculous how many times 40% or more people taking a placebo seem to experience the same positive results. But in those cases we can call it a “proven treatment” when we reach a certain percentage. So, it’s never 100%.

[Sonia]

@um

RSSB is probably the only religion in the world that does not believe in forgiveness. Especially with the current guru. The previous masters threw in Darshan as a means to remove “a multitude of suns” but the current one has debunked that. And while I think all of RS is magical thinking, I believe it’s current state is devoid of love. No forgiveness=no love.

[Sonia]

As the minimalists say, “we have a love language problem”. some RSSB members will say that they feel love at satsang. The thing is they’re confusing the feelings of other things with the feeling of real love. They confuse the high of self-righteousness with love, or the high of “idol worship” with live. But there is no true love there. And yes, that is a bold statement. However, I feel it is important to state because it’s enough to drive any sane person to stop believing in a higher power.

[Sonia]

This explains why there is no love in RSSB:

https://www.theminimalists.com/loveismore/

[Dungeness]

@ Spence : You asked "Why pursue experimentation about unicorns
and their fanciful powers he might well counter (even if he's barely
aware of his unstated prejudice)."

No, I said an atheist or anti-theist might well though. In counterpoint,
the religious reveal their own hasty biases of course. Both wander
off focus quickly.

@ Spence : Consciousness may turn out to be quite different from our common view. God will most certainly turn out to be different, but connected to the impressions of works from all ages.

Undoubtedly, but my larger point was about the dynamics of the search.
Few are likely to avoid their own prejudices when opining about unicorns
or understand the technical depths of science's attempts to hypothesize or
test unicorn-ish phenomena.

I suggested by implication that studying consciousness itself via a path of
mindfulness with a mystic's goal of direct perception is more efficacious
for most people. They will experience improved health and cognitive
function too. Even glean mystic insights about our own foibles that we
never suspected.

[Weareallscientists]

Spence makes a categorical claim that betrays what science actually is and what it does when he proclaims:

"Testing under controlled conditions is science."

That is not at all accurate and actually quite misleading.

Astronomy isn't predicated on "testing under controlled conditions."

Black holes aren't "controlled."
Gravitational waves aren't "controlled."

So much of astronomy is actually predicated on observation of varied phenomena that are the
very antithesis of controlled.

As the Khan Academy rightly points out concerning biological science,

"Non-experimental hypothesis tests Some types of hypotheses can't be tested in controlled experiments for ethical or practical reasons. For example, a hypothesis about viral infection can't be tested by dividing healthy people into two groups and infecting one group: infecting healthy people would not be safe or ethical. Similarly, an ecologist studying the effects of rainfall can't make it rain in one part of a continent, while keeping another part dry as a control. In situations like these, biologists may use non-experimental forms of hypothesis testing. In a non-experimental hypothesis test, a researcher predicts observations or patterns that should be seen in nature if the hypothesis is correct. She or he then collects and analyzes data, seeing whether the patterns are actually present."

So, science isn't boxed in as you suggest.

[Tendzin]

"The scientific world view" can not explain where life comes from, how the universe got started, or the countless inexplicable instances of fine-turning that allow a "world view" to be. The scientific world view can not explain the origin or the design of this universe.

This blog is repeating the same shallow atheist argument over and over again.

[um]

@ 777

I do not understand what you wrote about that picture in the bath room

[777]

She wouldn't have that feeling if her Dhyan faculty wasn't more active
( which is hyper active f.i. with all those half a million at Bhandara Reunions

I compared your hardships ( more, U said than with Hubberd )
with you hypnotising yourself , all that time
until U ended it

777

With much love to all struggling

Love is all that's counting
and
@Sonia
Real brilliant Love is not from the heart chakra
nor from the throat were wiping occurs
It's vibrating so high that it can only be felt by our Crown Chakra
and seems rigid to the lower emotional chakras

[um]

@ 777

If listening to the spoken French of family is visiting me, I just hear a stream of sounds and I am unable to make sense of what is said ...reading your words has the same effect.

The only thing I have come to understand over time is that, you are in constant union with what you consider love.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Weararealltescientists

You wrote
"Spence makes a categorical claim that betrays what science actually is and what it does when he proclaims:

"Testing under controlled conditions is science."

"That is not at all accurate and actually quite misleading.

Astronomy isn't predicated on "testing under controlled conditions."

Actually,Wear, you are wrong about this.

Science includes hypothesis testing and the gathering of data both under highly controlled conditions.

To test a hypothesis about whether the galaxy is expanding or contracting is tested by first forming a hypothesis of what that would look like, then testing the hypothesis under controlled conditions. Those are highly controlled conditions of measurement.

In Astrophysics in recent years there has been a debate over the speed at which the galaxy was expanding.Or if perhaps that rate is slowing down.. And this has lead to a testable hypothesis requiring highly controlled measurement..

"Some scientists wondered, though, whether the teams had correctly interpreted the data from the supernovae. Was it possible that another effect besides cosmic acceleration could have caused the supernovae to appear fainter than expected? Dust filling intergalactic space could also make the supernovae appear dim. Or perhaps ancient supernovae were just born dimmer because the chemical composition of the universe was different from what it is today, with a smaller abundance of the heavy elements produced by nuclear reactions in stars.

"Luckily, a good test of the competing hypotheses is available. If supernovae appear fainter than expected because of an astrophysical cause, such as a pervasive screen of dust, or because past supernovae were born dimmer, the putative dimming effects should increase with the objects’ redshift. But if the dimming is the result of a recent cosmic speedup that followed an earlier era of deceleration, supernovae from the slowdown period would appear relatively brighter. Therefore, observations of supernovae that exploded when the universe was less than two thirds of its present size could provide the evidence to show which of the hypotheses is correct. (It is possible, of course, that an unknown astrophysical phenomenon could precisely match the effects of both the speedup and slowdown, but scientists generally disfavor such artificially tuned explanations.)"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/expanding-universe-slows-then-speeds/

Wear, you are confusing hypotheses testing with experimentation.

All science requires hypothesis testing.

But not all science has control over independent variables. Our scientific control may only be over the means of measurement. But that control must be significant to assure a correct test of the hypothesis.

All science is testing hypotheses under controlled conditions, whether it is the controlled conditions of measurement of dependent variables alone or the controlled conditions of experimentation with independent varieties.

You are welcome for the lesson, free of charge.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Glenn
You wrote
"Prayer, for instance, always has failed rigorous tests. Your readers should be aware of our website (below), our Blog at http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/,

I did not find any research citations or links to prayer research on this blog. I could use your help locating it.

Can you please provide a link, or direct me to the research?

Of course testing prayer is a novel idea, but I'm unfamiliar with it outside of research on the effects of prayer and meditation on the body, which are generally positive. Of course that isn't a test of any hypothesis about the existence of God. But as you claim such rigorous testing exists, please provide links and I will read with interest.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
You wrote
"I suggested by implication that studying consciousness itself via a path of mindfulness with a mystic's goal of direct perception is more efficacious for most people. They will experience improved health and cognitive function too. Even glean mystic insights about our own foibles that we never suspected."

Agree fully with this.

Human beings gain knowledge through many avenues, their senses, rational thinking, and other sources of experience and information.

Meditation under the guidance of an experienced and qualified teacher, going within, is exposure to another arena of knowledge.

The scientist asks, can this knowledge be confirmed with external measures?

Since I believe all reality is linked together, I believe science will find those connections one day.

But meditation research is likely for some of us to be a much faster path.

Even for those without internal experience, meditation has proven to improve cognitive functioning, as you say, So our ability to be good scientists is also enhanced by the improvements in the physiological performance of the brain.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/02/09/7-ways-meditation-can-actually-change-the-brain/amp/

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonia
You wrote
"Well, when the Scientific method is applied to clinical trials the results are never 100%. It’s ridiculous how many times 40% or more people taking a placebo seem to experience the same positive results. But in those cases we can call it a “proven treatment” when we reach a certain percentage. So, it’s never 100%."

It's amazing what is at work around us that we don't fully understand.

Not just the placebo effect. Spontaneous, unexplained remission also happens...

" This study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine estimated that 22% of invasive breast cancers went away without treatment."

https://www.verywellhealth.com/spontaneous-remission-of-lung-cancer-a-rare-miracle-3971875

Of course five year survival rates for those undergoing medical treatment are 90%.

The human body's natural abilities are astounding. And so are the abilities of modern medicine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/understanding-a-breast-cancer-diagnosis/breast-cancer-survival-rates.html

[umami]

Glenn Borchardt,

Wow, I read your 20210712 post about cosmological redshift! I suspected it was only a distortion of some kind, like the way landscapes grow hazy in the distance, and you confirmed it! Thank you for explaining how it isn't the doppler effect but only entropic change to the waveform! Then the Big Bang is false? I should read your books. What about the cosmic radiation background?

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, you’re doing that same thing again, and I clearly see a pattern here, where you go through the motions of responding to a post, and then rather than actually addressing the meat of the arguments presented, you use your interlocutor’s words as no more as the base from which to vault onto your soapbox, and riff off yet another strand of your inner monolog, entirely ignoring all past discussion that you have no answer to. You do this yet again with your comments in response to Brian’s comment addressed to you.

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

“To a lay person it just means the products of science, the data and understanding that accrues as a result of scientific investigation, which is always to answer a well defined question.

So someone could say they are basing their conclusions on science without the foggiest idea of how science is conducted.

Unfortunately scientific data can only be applied accurately to the hypotheses that the experiment was designed to test.

When lay people attempt to use the data generated by science without understanding what that data actually is and means, relative to the hypothesis and theory the experiment was testing, they often misunderstood and misuse the data. This happens all the time in politics, religion and philosophy discussions.

The results get twisted to defend an agenda.”

.................Bull effing shit. This same thing has been clearly discussed too many times for you to pretend that you don’t understand.

The scientific method is what it is. That is the part that involves hypothesis testing, etc. While “the products of science, the data and understanding that accrues as a result of scientific investigation, etc”, as you put it, refer to what we might broadly refer to a scientific worldview.

EVERYONE who isn’t clueless about what science is actually about partakes of the scientific worldview (unless they are otherwise inclined, as anti-scientific folks tend to be). It isn’t as if the scientist does not do it, as you keep claiming; the scientist does it, first and foremost.

The scientist also conducts actual science, formal science. Doing that is not somehow antithetical to also partaking of an overall scientific worldview. To test some individual subject, and for the duration of that test to keep an open mind on that subject that others don’t, is not to keep a perennially open mind on any and every thing that is not conclusively proven. To keep an open mind is not to have one’s brains fall out; and to have one’s brains fall out is not the hallmark of the scientist but of the kook.

You’re presenting here a decidedly weird picture, that is not in keeping with actual reality, of lay people that are so inclined abiding by a scientific worldview, and of scientists doing just their tests and other than that refraining from availing of a scientific worldview beyond the subject matter that they happen to be researching.

This is utter nonsense. Like I said, to think thus is to betray a decidedly cargo cult understanding of science.

But it isn’t even that. No one can possibly be so deluded about something they clearly do have at least some nodding familiarity with. This has got to be a pose simply put on, in order to somehow try to pretend that a theistic worldview comports with science. (Unless it is literally a case of delusion.)

.

QUESTION : IS THE MOON MADE OF CHEESE? (PLEASE BASE YOUR ANSWER ON A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW.)

ANSWER : CHOOSE ONE : (A) YES ; (B) NO ; (C) CAN’T SAY ; (D) POTATOES AND TOMATOES.

I know you won’t answer the question, because your modus operandi has become abundantly clear by now. You’ll likely not address this question at all, just like you have sidestepped all of the actual arguments presented earlier on, and if at all you do you’ll speak of something else altogether (that is, choose option D).

Thing is, what you’ve done in your last few comments (following Brian’s comment to you) is the equivalent of claiming that laymen, who are ignorant of the actual workings of science, will go for option B, while scientists will necessarily go for option C until such time as they are able to produce peer-reviewed research specifically on this subject.

And that, like I said, is to betray an utterly cargo cult impression of science. Unless this is some kind of a pose.

Also, your passive aggressive attempt to put down your interlocutors is noted. The part where you clearly imply --- never actually standing up, with spine straight, and actually saying it clearly, but as is usual with you, hinting obliquely, ever careful of keeping the plausible deniability option open just a shade --- that those you label “lay people” (us plebs, presumably) haven’t the “foggiest idea” of science, and are following an agenda (while you, presumably, do, and aren’t).

At this point I call bull shit.

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

“If you had seen what I have seen repeatedly you would demand a real answer and not an explanation, or dismiss it with some convenient explanation.
A religious explanation and a scientific sounding explanation are both not hard science. They aren't truth. They are both poor excuses.
Testing under controlled conditions is science.”

Here’s the thing. We respect your experiences, generally speaking. Despite this parade of bull shit, we continue to take it at face value, generally speaking, and we continue to honor that core experience --- although, to be frank, it is getting increasingly difficult to continue to do that. In any case, to the extent we continue to take your experiences at face value, we can understand your attempts at somehow finding some explanation for your particular experiences.

But unlike you, our worldview is NOT focused around finding some explanation for YOUR experiences, given that we’ve not had those experiences, and don’t even know as fact that they’re not either delusions or lies. Our worldview --- and this applies to layman and scientist alike, not just for the lay folks --- is focused on explaining OUR common experiences, that we’re all of us privy to.

That is not to dismiss your experiences. Sure, that is one of the fringe things in the world that we do consider. But the point is, given those experiences are YOURS, and the rest of us aren’t even fully sure they’re even actually the case, we don’t label a worldview that does not explain those visions to your full satisfaction as somehow fundamentally lacking or unscientific.

Should we come to share in your experiences, then it is possible that we might start sharing your obsessive focus on such; but until such time, it is no more than an interesting oddity, that we’re kind of interested in, some of us --- and I count myself amongst those who are decidedly interested --- but most certainly not to the point of actual obsession, as is clearly (and understandably) the case with you.

(To be clear, I repeat, I can understand, fully well, how such single-minded focus is understandable in your case, given that --- taking all of this at face value --- this is something so central to your life. That is fine. But you must not expect us to share your blinkered focus on those experiences of yours. And to say that is to neither to entirely ignore or to dishonor your experiences, and nor is it, for the rest of us, some insurmountable lack in our worldview.)

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

“Let me summarize. If there is a divine creator, and this creation is the effect of God's work, he is casually linked to everything in creation and therefore his effect on this creation must be detectable and his /her effect measurable universally.”

.................That does not follow, at all, in any way or manner. It is entirely possible to have a creator, should there be a creator, that is not “causally linked to everthing in creation …. with effect measurable equally”.

Amazing how you solemnly keep pronouncing this kind of utter bilge, with the air of actually talking sense.

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

“How to test this?
I suggest quantum foam is a place to start. These particles are popping in and out of existence all the time. They become smooth until their distances get below a certain measure and then they become unstable, "foamy" and begin popping in and out of existence.
"The X-ray and gamma-ray data show that spacetime is smooth down to distances 1000 times smaller than the nucleus of a hydrogen atom."
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/nasa-telescopes-set-limits-on-spacetime-quantum-foam.html
If this distance were to be artificially set as the frequency of a beam of heavy particles that beam would draw other surrounding quantum foam particles to within that distance and we should see, hypothesis and theory being correct, a measurable distortion in space, time and matter.”

……………..I readily admit that I’ve only a layman’s very casual knowledge of this quantum foam business, but by now I’m familiar enough with your methods to guess that this apparently impressive test idea is very likely utter nonsense.

Straight question, Spence: Are you really familiar with QM? Are you actually conversant with the math that is the meat of QM? Do you actually have any in-depth understanding of these concepts beyond what some random googling and looking up some popular write-ups and maybe reading a popular science book or two might inform one with? By now I’m fairly sure, not just suspicious but close to actually sure, that the answer is a No.

Your “test” is not just fallacious but entirely and wholly nonsensical, because, even assuming that suggested test of yours makes sense from a technical POV, even then,

(1) I see no reason to assume that “God” would be uniformly interspersed across the universe. That’s just a random characteristic of your God that you’ve plucked right off of your backside.

and

(2) Should something actually be found that answered that description, in such a test, on what basis would you claim that that thing, whatever it is, is anything that might answer to the label of God? That it might be even conscious?

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

“Hi Glenn
You wrote
"Prayer, for instance, always has failed rigorous tests. Your readers should be aware of our website (below), our Blog at http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/,

I did not find any research citations or links to prayer research on this blog. I could use your help locating it.

Can you please provide a link, or direct me to the research?

Of course testing prayer is a novel idea, but I'm unfamiliar with it outside of research on the effects of prayer and meditation on the body”

…………….A one-minute google search throws up this link (the first one that happened to come up). The link is not to the paper itself, but to a NYT article reporting on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/longawaited-medical-study-questions-the-power-of-prayer.html

But why would prayer to today’s God not bearing results matter to you, when it does not matter to your worldview that (the lack of) prayers to the thunder gods of yore don’t work either, and that (the lack of) prayers to the sun god of times past have no bearing on whether the sun will rise again next day?

This deluded, cargo cult mentality simply boggles the mind.

Incidentally, here’s what someone who happens to happens to have some scientific pedigree has to to say, "The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion." Which isn’t to be wondered at, given it was the Templeton Foundation that funded the study (so that one is gratified that, random unsupported remarks of that nature apart, at least they had the integrity to report the actual results of the study). And which is exactly what Brian told you, not his own views but his anticipation of and caricature of the typical kook POV. Must you persist with that violence, and that blasphemy, by suggesting scientific tests for God?

(I wait now for you to quote the words, “Must you persist with that violence, and that blasphemy, by suggesting scientific tests for God?” from my quote, and, while going through the motions of responding my quote, ignoring everything said here and rambling off with some more random non sequiturs and new tangential discussions from atop your soapbox.)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian Ji
You asked
". If God is about beliefs, not facts, then what beliefs and accompanying inner experience distinguish a God-knower from a God-unknower? If there is no discernible difference, then this is evidence against God."

The questions are decent but the decision rule isn't sound.

A lot of things may distinguish those who say they believe from those practice prayer and meditation intensely.

But even the scientifically proven benefits of such practice, even the astounding internal events reported in spiritual writings are not proof of God.

And therefore lack of such evidence also is not proof of no God.

To test for the existence of God would require
1. a solid theory about just who or what God is agreed to by a scientific peer group.

2. At least two or more competing hypotheses that are rationally connected to the theory.

3. A means of controlled testing for each hypotheses.

4. And ideally experimental control... The ability to manipulate the variables being tested.

Lacking evidence could just be the absence of controlled testing.

But unfortunately, having "evidence" without control could be the result of other variables.

You can say that you don't believe in God because the evidence is not compelling.

But you cannot say that science has proven God doesn't exist.

[Prayerstudy]

On the effects of prayer.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-mar-31-sci-prayer31-story.html?_amp=true

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
I think we can get somewhere if we limit the discussion at first to some premeses we can agree upon.

Then let's focus on one or two examples.

If we can avoid adding ad hominem attacks and scattering in fresh arguments and examples, but stick to one thing at a time we may get to some grounds for agreement.

You asked
"QUESTION : IS THE MOON MADE OF CHEESE? (PLEASE BASE YOUR ANSWER ON A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW.)

ANSWER : CHOOSE ONE : (A) YES ; (B) NO ; (C) CAN’T SAY ; (D) POTATOES AND TOMATOES.

The answer is no, of course.
On the basis of scientific evidence.
We have the rocks to prove it.

Cheese, on the other hand, is a human - made product.

Now, does that mean some other place in creation doesn't have their version of cheese? Or that they didn't create a supply of food large enough to fill a small moon?

Who can say? Life on other planets may or may not exist. And if so who knows how developed they may or may not be.

I can't say, can you?

[weareallscientists]

Spencer,

Thank you for elaborating on what science does.
Your post underlines my very point.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi again AR
Thank you for the link re prayer research.

Unfortunately, that research, one in a long line of similar studies with similar results, is not what Glenn referred to in his comment
"Readers should know that there have been numerous scientific tests of the god hypothesis. Prayer, for instance, always has failed rigorous tests."

The prayer research was testing the effectiveness of intercessory prayer requests for healing, not on whether or not there is a God.

The research was a very good design and conclusive that overall no effect was detected.

However there are many studies demonsrrating the positive health on oneself for prayer and meditation practices.

And a good deal of research supporting the hypothesis that we are hard wired for such practice.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104310443

None of this is a test for God, however.

Which is why no one, neither Believer nor Atheist can claim their view of based on actual science.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
I was just Brainstorming and had a suggestion.

Instead of the phrase "scientific world view" which can be confused with actual science, which is different, why not a different name?.

How about "Materialsm world view"

Or "Western rationalist view."

Or?....

Then we are neither abusing nor coopting real science in support of our views?

[Sonia]

Can I just say that there are basically only two types of people on this blog—a) those who rigidly follow the scientific method and deny the possibility of anything supernatural, and b) those who rigidly follow the RSSB method and believe that only a “master” can save them even though technically he doesn’t “save them” he just takes them on some weird and wonderful path through the astral realms.

I feel like I’m the only person who comments on this blog who doesn’t fall into either one of those EXTREME categories.

Is there no middle ground here??

This site attracts extremely dogmatic and rigid thinking individuals.

I pray that you’ll prove me wrong.

[Spence Tepper]

Just as another point.
My work life is filled with trying to use data to convince doctors, nurses and technologists that doing things differently will result in fewer mortalities and better results. I face this "were basing our practice on science and therefore the rates are what they are and can't be changed.." all the time.

Observational data is always countered with "well that just happened when you were there..." There is no end to justifications.

The result is to get enough data so that a few progressive providers agree to the pilot study.

And the results of that is where the worldview of that hospital changes.

Hence my sentiment that there is no substitute for controlled experimentation. Especially if progress is the goal. Short of that, I've grown deaf to the excuses for no progress.

Here is another challenge I hear from post Covid hospital clients... "We've lost so much we must slash staff and find a way to get by on less.."

My reply is always, "Labor productivity is labor cost per service unit. You can cut your labor costs by recapturing the volume off patients who can't get anyone on the phone, or get an appointment within two days." Clients reply "How could you possibly know how many patients those are.."

And then I must comment, "Trust me. Your backlog and your poor service levels... You are turning away patients every day. Give me two months and your bottom line will grow faster and greater than any layoff you might get away with..
"

I'm used to dealing with people who have a completely blinkered view even though they are medical professionals with decades of experience.

Just not the right experience for this situation.

[Sonia]

@777

Love is a score of zero.

That means there is no calculating. It means “God” doesn’t keep track of your karmas because love is a score of zero (the minimalists article explains what that means). If you actually followed a benevolent higher power you would realize that you’re already free. Only a demon would keep you bound to this earth because of you (good and bad) karmas.

RS is based on the idea that you have all this karma and you’re not allowed to leave the Creation until you’ve accounted for every single deed.

RS does not believe in forgiveness. I don’t know how many times I have to say this. GSD says all the time that the RS masters don’t take on your karma and that you have to work off your karma through meditation.

RS teaches that forgiveness is impossible and you have to “earn” God’s love by paying the price for all of your good and bad karma. Again, RS is phenomenally bad at math. GSD is Kal. He encompasses all of Kal’s qualities. He is absolutely NOT the merciful higher power. In fact he stands in complete opposition to God.

[neuralsurfer]

Spencer,

While it is certainly true when you write that "you cannot say that science has proven God doesn't exist,"
that same line can be applied to almost anything metaphysical, including astral pokemons, spiritually infused ding dongs in a parallel universe, and Bruce Willis' lost hairpiece on the planet Bukie in the upper reaches of Trikuti.

The discussion devolves and one can understand why the late philosopher Rudolph Carnap could posit that
"many philosophical problems are indeed pseudo-problems, the outcome of a misuse of language."

The real crux of the problem is that we have a built-in tendency (see the development of philosophy from Kant onwards) to mistake our brain-set and its imputations for how the multiverse should respond, forgetting that what we get in return is directly correlated to our own limited cranial projections.

The god question, in other words, is perhaps why Wittgenstein would end his Tractus with the oft-quoted witticism:

"“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Science isn't a conclusion, yes. But positing god's existence (or lack thereof) is perhaps a false question, akin to a squirrel asking whether there is an infinite nut creating the known cosmos.

Both positions are "nutty"?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
I had written earlier
"“Let me summarize. If there is a divine creator, and this creation is the effect of God's work, he is casually (I meant causally) linked to everything in creation and therefore his effect on this creation must be detectable and his /her effect measurable universally."

You questioned the logic of this statement. Let me explain.

Every testable event has a cause. You may define that as multiple independent variables in a unique mix, but whatever that is we can say" this is the cause ". At least that is what careful scientific study demonstrates. Often that cause is measured in its effect on other things. If this whole creation has a cause, those hand prints should be somewhere, maybe everywhere.

I had also given the example of the batter hitting balls in a baseball stadium. And the observer being blind, but able to detect the scatter of balls on the grass. This was to explain how science can use measurable results to learn more about something unseen that cannot be measured directly.

This was actually my way of simplifying some physics experiments with electrons being shot from an accelerator, or alpha particles shot at an object where we can only record the reflective pathways off the target (like xray chrystolography used to detect the double helix of DNA, or Rutherford's gold foil experiment demonstrating that matter is mostly empty space).

Therefore, if something caused this creation, even if we can't detect it directly, we should be able to detect its effect and trace it back to the independent variable. This is especially so if that variable is active.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Neural Surfer
You wrote
"Science isn't a conclusion, yes. But positing god's existence (or lack thereof) is perhaps a false question, akin to a squirrel asking whether there is an infinite nut creating the known cosmos."

Depends on the definition of God.
My comments were a response to others who claimed science has proven God doesn't exist.

For the reasons you cite, such claims may be nutty. But iI would never conclude so.

Taking them seriously I have attempted to set forth what would be necessary for Science to explore the subject, should anyone wish to do so.

My personal belief is that the whole creation is connected, so any independent variables should be detectable, even though their effects on other dependent variables.

I'll walk that mile with anyone who wants to understand science better, rather than suggest they are nutty.

Claiming that science has proven God doesn't exist may be a little ignorant, just as claiming science has proven God exists, but it isn't nutty. Ignorance can be solved with information.

[neuralsurfer]

Hi Spence,

Thanks for your response. I often wonder why we posit notions of god or any metaphysical entity as if they are somehow connected to real questions with real answers. Perhaps they are illustrative of our own brain state and tell us much about our own nuanced psychology. This, of course, reminds me of Ramana Maharahi who would often usurp a questioner when they asked about life after death and he might reply with, "do you ask this same question in deep sleep?" To which the inquirer would invariably say no.

Thus the implication is that the questions we ask of the universe tell us more about our own cranial evolution than about any purported "realities" in the multiverse.

But then again perhaps we cannot help asking such questions, just as Nagel may point out about bats and what kinds of consciousness they possess and if they could speak why kinds of queries they would posit. Bat circumscribed, human circumscribed.

I often reflect on the nice phrase, "don't confuse neurology for ontology."

God's existence or non-existence may be likened to those in Eckankar asking about the existence or non-existence of Gakko from the city of Retz on Venus. To believers of such theologies, it appears to be an important inquiry, while to outsiders it may appear to be a nonsensical waste of time.

Yet, and the yet here is important, it provides meaning to those who seek such answers, even if the question betrays its real origination.

Thanks for the discussion. Nutty questions and nutty answers are the lot of humans in search of meaning.

What else can squirrel-like humans do?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Nueral Surfer

Love your comments.
" I often wonder why we posit notions of god or any metaphysical entity as if they are somehow connected to real questions with real answers. Perhaps they are illustrative of our own brain state and tell us much about our own nuanced psychology."

Personally, I believe it has to do with two things, experience and how we choose to handle it.

For some folks they really see no evidence of God and are annoyed by others yakking on about unseen things.

For others, they see and feel things no one else can every day and must find a way to function with that as part of their reality.

Here is an example... A few years ago I went to a "surprise" visit by Baba Ji to Chicago. We were all in a junior college basketball court, most of us sitting in the bleachers and quite a few, mostly Indians, in seats set up on the court.

While waiting people were visiting with each other, standing, sitting, moving around. Many wore traditional garb, women with Saris and a few men with turbans, some in suits others in traditional Indian pants and shirt.

A small platform, maybe eight by eight feet, a few inches high, was set up under the basket. And on the platform was a desk and chair. The seats on the floor were facing this platform, so we all assumed this is where Baba Ji would be speaking. And as we waited this is where we were looking.

While we waited the guy sitting next to me struck up a conversation. He was a bar tender who had an interest in meditation and in particular Sant Mat. He was considering asking for initiation. I thought that was great and mentioned that meditation had great benefits.

While we talked we watched the platform. One guy came through a door in the wall behind the desk and started walking to the desk. I commented, "Oh, maybe that's part of the entourage, maybe Baba Ji will be coming next."

He stepped onto the platform and became Baba Ji.

I remained silent. I like to keep most of my issues to myself.

The guy next to me, the bar tender, gets choked up, turns to me and in a not so quite voice says," Did you see that!? That guy just turned into Baba Ji!"

What could I say? I replied "Welcome to Sant Mat."

What did that event mean? Does it mean God exists? Does it mean somehow, beyond explanation we shared an identical Hallucination at exactly the same moment?

These are all explanations. And none of them are rational or reasonable.

So this experience gets placed into the bucket of "unknown". It happened. It exists, as a real experience. Lots of explanations, but nothing convincing.

This is how a materialist, a scientist deals with such events.

It isn't scientific or materialistic to find an excuse, a conventional excuse to label and dismiss things outside it even within one's experience. And a religious explanation is equally meaningless to the folks handed that experience.

So I don't need to know why because right now I can't know, and neither can you or anyone else here.

What I can do is respect the unknown.

And patiently enjoy science as it proceeds, to learn with science.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Nueral
Yes, people like to create theories about the unknown, hence, untested.

So long as people experience things without clarity or knowledge of their source, they may attribute anything at all to it, including "God", "the government", "Aliens" or "hallucination." By that very act the term "God" is being used as a label of something ill defined, and is by that use, undefinable and untestable.

If you have enough unexplained events in your life, you may develop a system of belief. A personal system that works for you.

If you do not have any experiences that you cannot satisfactorily explain to yourself, then there is no necissity for belief. Except that those explanations formulate your own system of belief.

But as for science two things are proven all the time. 1. Whatever we can measure has a cause.
2. Stuff exists that is outside of our current understanding :the unknown.

[Spence Tepper]

One minor point, Neural
You wrote
"This, of course, reminds me of Ramana Maharahi who would often usurp a questioner when they asked about life after death and he might reply with, "do you ask this same question in deep sleep?"

That's why we ask. We are in that state currently. Hence the questions.

And when we are asked, we can only answer as another dreamer.

[🌺🌺. Glorious happening. 🌺🌺]

@neuralsurfer

Is this the your heritage from Chand?
Did he ever guess that he is The Creator in amnesia.

Most logic is that U exists and all other 'quarks' are of Your Holy making
This obvious logic, the sufis trie(d) to tell us
but the squirrels "seem" to overwhelm the blogs

777

@UM. I'm all the time asking how a Gurmukhi would feel

[Tim Rimmer]

Hey Sonia
Interesting point you make about who comments on this blog.
I was wondering about this also. There is of course at least one other category - those that have let go of the Sant Mat Dogma but in some way still remain connected, in that our past association continues to influence our ongoing worldview. This has got to be acknowledged.
For whatever reason many of us were drawn to Sant Mat (RSSB) and then spent a fair proportion of our lives trying to live up to it. It’s like how we get affected by our interactions with parents as we are growing up - still in there. That’s my take on it.

I’ve been endeavouring to keep up with and read this on-going lengthy debate about the existence/non-existence of God/proof thereof etc ???

Maybe another way to look at it is - there are two types of people who comment on this blog - those that believe that consciousness is everything and those that believe it is an outcome of what happens in the human brain (I’m in the first camp). Science appears to be uncovering a lot of information about what goes on within the second, but as far as I can tell (with limited knowledge), tools are unavailable when it comes to ‘measuring’ the first. I also tend to gravitate to research performed by those scientists/researchers who have spent a lot of time exploring their own minds via various meditation/self-inquiry techniques in conjunction with cutting edge neuroscience etc. At least they can draw on their own internal experience when it comes to how they perceive consciousness.

I see one of the latest comments is to Spencer from ‘neuralsurfer’ (Hi D). The latter makes the point about Ramana’s response to a question about life after death - do you ask the same question in deep sleep?
The way I read it, is that it’s a null question as in deep sleep there is no one there not even a dreamer. This is the thing with ‘consciousness’ imo. How do we measure the no-one there state?

The other thing, that seems to be related to all this and I’m sure was and still is a (the?) key to the whole thing is this Love mystery. 777 in his weird way is always on about it. Many folk would say it is the essential ingredient that lies at the core of our humanity. Expression of which in our responses towards each other and this world are so needed, especially at this time. Well that’s what I think.
I just read this:

“When we are dead, seek not our tomb in the earth, but find it in the hearts of men” (RUMI).
Best wishes

[um]

@ 777

"I'm all the time asking how a Gurmukhi would feel"

Gurmukh is like the many words I heard in dutch churches but never understood.
words like grace, forgiveness, repentence, sin etc ...

I know how to write them but do now know what they mean ... my world is that of coffee.

[umami]

Spence,

Somewhere in an RS book I read that interstellar space is a subtle form of matter. It stuck with me. Here's Glenn Borchardt suggesting something similar, that it's full of aether particles as opposed to nothingness...
https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2008/04/contradiction-between-infinite-universe.html?m=1

Fixed aether is an ancient idea, "disproven" by Michelson-Morley experiments. Borchandt's aether is dynamic, decreasing in density near baryonic matter. Spacetime doesn't curve after all. Gravity is the effect of high pressure aether pushing objects toward low pressure aether. Like wind? I ​guess? Somehow objects gets swept along. Collision, but how does the subtle aether have influence on the gross atoms? That part I don't know.

He knocks Einstein off the pedestal, but if he's right, there you go. Contingently, an instance of mysticism anticipating science.

[neuralsurfer]

Dear 777,

Thanks for your note. What I learned from Faqir, and of course countless others, in this short sojourn on
terra firma may be best summarized by a little film we made a couple of years ago.

https://youtu.be/owYddq-a2bU

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
I'm not sure Einstein thought that space was empty, and as we have seen there is much evidence of particles and waves.

And yet even when nothing is detected, something is connecting the planets.. Gravity. But what is gravity?
We also see the invisible something connecting distant particles...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-bells-theorem-proved-spooky-action-at-a-distance-is-real-20210720/

Einstein 's incredible genius was, like Newton, describing the actions we see and can measure on matter and energy accurately by proposing principles associated with matter : space time. This can be seen as a quality of matter that science is continuing to refine. It doesn't mean space is empty. It means that what connects the planets and all matter, which are forces proportional to mass, including time itself, can be explained perfectly without reference to anything else. Certainly there must be a intervening mechanism we can detect. But calculating the movement of celestial bodies, or the shift in time, doesn't require it.

The evidence today of the big bang is still the preferred theory, but there is by no means full consensus as there has been, because our measurements have become refined, revealing new possibilities. Others theorize a recurring bang in cycles or smaller bangs in different pockets of space. This is all because the data on the expanding universe is not exactly linear and not the same speed at different places. Of course that can also be due to the mass of the pieces, and if there were secondary explosions, etc... There are now hypotheses that the universe had a slow down then a speed up in its expansion, to explain where the celestial bodies actually are now vs their current speed and acceleration.

Quantum foam, as mentioned earlier, is a means to help explain intervening particles / energy between matter.

Nothing conclusive yet, except space time and the fact that the universe is expanding. Those measures have been verified in a host of different ways. If Ether exists, it may well be a variety of particles. But an ancient story, while potentially informed by vision, is not the same quality as hard scientific results. What science is doing now is really the place to be on this. Yes there will be lots of competing theories, but these are the seeds of hypotheses, which will be confirmed or disproven with new measures.

[🌺🌺. N S Good Video 🌺🌺]

@neural Surfer
I placed the thumb N° 43
Need to hear again to re-set my knowledge of physics
Shame however that the primordial sin was just a side remark. at 07:00
while the whole universe is based on the achievement of
compassion
Many "friends" I lost since that Eve's apple is fake news, . . . it was a steak !
And the Creator was SO right TO CLOSE PARADISE FOR THE KILLERS
until they in the actual Universe learn compassion, Empathy again
which is Love
Evolution is THAT: to accumulate Love and "time" to do that is presently abundant!
Some need many Big Bangs (if BBs exist), some produce more in a nano-second.
It's a noble and clever concept wrought in Creations without injustice.
But U know this.
Maybe a second equally beautiful video could explain WHY we exist
Just for the generation of more love
In abundance
That's Why YOU are HIM. in temporal amnesia

Isn't that a fantastic way to fill some "eternity"

777

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hi AR
I think we can get somewhere if we limit the discussion at first to some premeses we can agree upon."

.................Spence, we aren't exactly the in the "at first" stage. We can get somewhere if you would actually engage with what is being said.

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

"If we can avoid adding ad hominem attacks and scattering in fresh arguments and examples"

.................Irony much? I regret the asperity that had seeped on to my previous comment. Mea culpa as far as that. There was absolutely no call for that tone in that comment of mine, both in general and especially with you, Spence, who are always unfailingly polite, and with whom I've always had the most cordial of interactions. That I regret; I should have taken care to express myself more gently. But as far as homs, I'd say that suggesting (always just suggesting) that we haven't actually been educated in science (an erroneous assumption), and that we haven't the "foggiest idea" of what science is about, is what would be textbook ad hom. And it's you who've been assiduously stepping away from every point raised that you don't seem to have an answer to, and moving on to fresh points instead. You can stop doing that any time you want to.

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

"You asked
"QUESTION : IS THE MOON MADE OF CHEESE? (PLEASE BASE YOUR ANSWER ON A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW.)

ANSWER : CHOOSE ONE : (A) YES ; (B) NO ; (C) CAN’T SAY ; (D) POTATOES AND TOMATOES.

The answer is no, of course.
On the basis of scientific evidence.
We have the rocks to prove it."

.................Glad you answered that directly. And I agree with your answer, obviously.

Here's some more questions. And it will be obvious to you why I'm asking them.

2(a) Would you agree that, basis a scientific worldview, we can assert that the sun is not a god, and whether or not we sacrifice human hearts has no bearing on whether the sun will rise again the next day?

2(b) Do you agree that there have been conceptions of god among the Aztecs that centered around those beliefs?

2(c) Combining the two questions already asked, would you agree that science has disproved that particular conception of God?

3(a, b, c), 4(a, b, c), etc, can be filled in easily with the other examples I'd provided.

What is God? Certainly one valid answer to that question would be that God is whatever theists believe Him to be. Which gives rise to many God ideas. Like I'd originally said, every time science disproves individual God ideas, theists immediately discard the discredited God idea, and move on to more subtle, and therefore less easily disproved conceptions of God. Which is the point at which you'd sprung your ill-conceived challenge on me, to show you where science had disproved God. The fact is there are many instances of such happening. Which is exactly what is referred to when we speak of the God of the Gaps.

Sure, that still does leave some abstract conceptions of God that do not admit of direct disproof. But still, in as much as no direct evidence is forthcoming to support the claim of such a God, we are constrained to set such claim aside, which latter position corresponds to soft atheism.

-------

Hi again AR"
Thank you for the link re prayer research.

Unfortunately, that research, one in a long line of similar studies with similar results, is not what Glenn referred to in his comment
"Readers should know that there have been numerous scientific tests of the god hypothesis. Prayer, for instance, always has failed rigorous tests."

The prayer research was testing the effectiveness of intercessory prayer requests for healing, not on whether or not there is a God.

The research was a very good design and conclusive that overall no effect was detected.

However there are many studies demonsrrating the positive health on oneself for prayer and meditation practices."

.................Glenn had said there are many studies that show that prayers don't work. Naturally I had no way of knowing which specific study he was referring to, but this thing, about studies directly disproving the efficacy of praying, is something I was aware of, as well, and a quick google search threw up many references. I posted the first of those, and that clearly shows that praying had zero beneficient effect on the subjects.

My point was, to the extent that there are people who actually believe that there is a God that answers those kinds of prayers, to that extent that was disproof by science of that conception of God. Yet again.

Like I'd said, and like you fail to acknowledge, God --- that is to say, specific God ideas actually held on to by actual people --- has been disproved, many times, by science. (Which nevertheless does leave many other conceptions of God that have not been so disproved, obviously, including some that cannot admit at all of direct disproof.)

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

"Hi AR
I was just Brainstorming and had a suggestion.

Instead of the phrase "scientific world view" which can be confused with actual science, which is different, why not a different name?.

How about "Materialsm world view"

Or "Western rationalist view.

Or?....

Then we are neither abusing nor coopting real science in support of our views?"

.................Most assuredly not, Spence. The whole point is that a rationalistic worldview, and specifically a scientific worldview is exactly what I'm talking of.

While that worldview is materialistic, nevertheless that is not the essence of that worldview, it is merely its consequence. Ditto atheism. Should an immaterial and theistic worldview ever appear reasonable consequent to holding a rationalistic and scientific worldview, then materialism (or atheism) would no longer, in that case, be what this worldview entails.

As for "western rationalism", well, firstly, East and West and North and South have nothing at all to do with this. Rationalism, sure, I agree with that part; but that would be an incomplete and incorrect label, because science is an essential and inescapable part of this worldview. That is what this is actually about.

And no one that is thinking straight can possibly mistake "scientific worldview" for the direct conduct of formal science. That word, "worldview"? It is used precisely because what is being sought to be indicated is a worldview. I don't see any scope of ambiguity there, given the very clear and unambiguous meaning of the word "worldview".

As for "abusing and co-opting" science, I'm afraid you're the only here doing that. To describe a worldview that is arrived at directly consequent to the knowledge arrived at via science as a scientific worldview, cannot in any shape or form be thought of as "co-opting" or "abuse" of science. On the other hand, bending science entirely out of all recognizable shape in order to try to somehow fit in the claim that a theistic worldview is not anti-scientific (not in principle but in practice, given what science has uncovered so far) is what would rightly answer to the description of co-opting and abuse of science.

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

This particular discussion between you and I has probably run its course, Spence. Twice I've suggested that I will leave the discussion be, and both times I'm afraid I hadn't the sense to resist the impulse to jump right back in to set right something said that was blatantly incorrect.

No doubt we'll have other discussions in future, that hopefully will be more productive than this one has been. With your general erudition, and your study particularly of spirituality, and especially your remarkable spiritual experiences, you have a great deal to share with us who are interested in these things. Given all of that, I don't see why you should even need to resort to these rhetorical tricks and fallacious arguments and these attempted misdirections in order to prop up an indefensible position. Your God, if He's real --- in which case He'd be my God too --- has no need of subterfuge. Should He be real, we'll one day know Him to be real, fair and square.

[um]

@ AR

Whether what the "astecs" believed about the divine, was true or not, rational or not, scientific or not .... that believe has been an reality, an reality that that is still with us today.

That holds for all religious beliefs but also for the inner experiences of any individual.

If a person has a good,dream, or an nightmare he wil start his day in a particular way and influence the people around him.

What more those who have NDE's etc.

They describe their experiences in books, speak about them on youtube and on seminars and they are discussed in universities by scholars that want to understand it.

So ... although the content cannot be shown and the source not be proved, the experiences are real and do influence individuals but also on a large scale society and culture.

[Appreciative Reader]

"While it is certainly true when you write that "you cannot say that science has proven God doesn't exist,"
that same line can be applied to almost anything metaphysical, including astral pokemons, spiritually infused ding dongs in a parallel universe, and Bruce Willis' lost hairpiece on the planet Bukie in the upper reaches of Trikuti."

-------

Hello, neuralsurfer.

Agreed, absolutely, with the point you're making. That science hasn't directly disproved something is not to therefore accept it in a rational scientific worldview, not even to hold it as true pending disproof, because the same can be said about any limitless number of conceptions people can think up.

But I'd like to add in a nuance in response to your observation. Like I was saying to Spence, it is a question of how one defines God; and while there is obviously no unanimity on this, definitely one valid way to look at it would be to define God as how actual real-life theists define Him. I mean, if you actually worship the Flyng Spaghetti Monster and base your life on His noodly teachings, then who better than you to define that particular conception of God is yours?

Going by that definition, we do come up with many instances of God having been clearly disproved, many specific instances of God conceptions having been clearly debunked, by science. (Which admittedly does leave many other conceptions of God that have not been so debunked, including some that may arguably not admit of direct disproof at all.)

-------

"The discussion devolves and one can understand why the late philosopher Rudolph Carnap could posit that
"many philosophical problems are indeed pseudo-problems, the outcome of a misuse of language."

.......I haven't read Rudolph Carnap, and don't know the context in which he said what he did. But it is very insightful to suggest --- although I don't know whether that is actually what he was suggesting here --- that we sometimes/often tend to imagine that something that makes sense linguistically might also make sense in reality, which is of course entirely fallacious. Which is why science is such a powerful tool, because it is the only one that lets us approach the world as it is, as opposed to how we conceive it to be. And I see no reason why spirituality (however defined) should not also admit of being incorporated into a scientific worldview, to the extent it might be based on something that is actually and substantially real.

[Appreciative Reader]

" although the content cannot be shown and the source not be proved, the experiences are real and do influence individuals but also on a large scale society and culture."

-------

Hello, um.

Agreed, absolutely.

Whether or not the contents of one's dreams comport with reality, the dream itself is fact, and the fact that those contents are what they are; as well as any larger effects they might end up having; and all of these can, and do, make for valid subject of study. (Or at least of idle speculation and coffee-fueled discussion, ha ha!)

[um]

@ AR

>> (Or at least of idle speculation and coffee-fueled discussion, ha ha!)<<<

Hahaha ... good!!

And ... Although the content of the concepts of God might be different for differnt cultures and different times, ... the function ... is more or less the same for all.

Laike cars ...or ... sorts of coffee.

Religious thought has directed the history of man ... not always in a good way, .. not always in a bad way.

Many sciences have their start in monasteries all over the world .

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"2(a) Would you agree that, basis a scientific worldview, we can assert that the sun is not a god, and whether or not we sacrifice human hearts has no bearing on whether the sun will rise again the next day?

" 2(b) Do you agree that there have been conceptions of god among the Aztecs that centered around those beliefs?

" 2(c) Combining the two questions already asked, would you agree that science has disproved that particular conception of God?

Today rationalists and materialists compare these ancient myths explaining natural events with scientific facts explaining the same. The two are quite different. And so today's modern rationalist assumes that the system of belief is false without any further discussion about that belief.

I had tried twice to review the work of scholarly investigators who tried to find what purpose such outlandish myths would serve, that would purpetuate these myths. The story of Thor stil captivates today, with most folks understanding this is a fable. But it is told in many cultures Insert different names. The physical aspect of the story is only part of the story.

At the time the myths were extant there was no science. But they contained elements of psychological truth that are still true today.

So that is why, to claim broadly God doesn't exist based on these ancient myths, but to ignore the very real function of God in people's lives, can only happen if you personally, or some group dismisses the full and functional definition of God as a symbolic archetype built into the human subconscious. Scholars have searched the world, Like Joseph Campbell testing that hypothesis and finding evidence to support it.

Whether God actually exists in any form requires scientific study. He may well be outside of physical measurement. And like all ideas prevalent in humans, completely different up close and under inspection.

For any group of people to create a straw man definition, making so by that blinkered definition, making all ancient myths look ridiculous by limiting them to the physical facts, and not submit their own "rational thinking" to the rigors of science, including peer review consensus, is not rational. It's political.

A deeper review of those myths will illuminate for you that most of those ancient peoples never expected to actually see their Gods. Their stories were instructional for living their lives, and bringing order in a dangerous world. And most didn't, yet they maintained belief. The physicality of these stories, of these Gods was not important to these people. To constrain the definition to the least important aspect, one that matters to western society aloe, is pure ignorance of those cultures as they functioned day to day. And the cultural and psychological Truth of these Gods.

That's why I can't endorse the label "Scientific World View."

But I can endorse anyone with limited knowledge of ancient myths and cultures attempting to judge their limited definition against common current knowledge. It's all they can do without the extra step of actual investigation into these matters... An effort to understand how these cultures functioned very effectively in their time. Even to read of the study of ancient myths to understand their very real purpose in keeping vulnerable civilizations of the past alive.

This is the whole reason why true science is so superior to common myth, even the modern myth of the Scientific World View...

Science by its process doesn't allow people to claim Truth and draw conclusions without formal and rigorous dialogue, means, and the consensus building peer review of people who don't think like you and I.

You may feel perfectly comfortable dismissing every word I write with derogatory comments. But a scientist would seek whatever facts of value might be in the opposing view. Because a scientist has no case to defend. They are investigating and sharing what they have found.

Conclusions follow from open investigation.

But in argumentation, conclusions lead.

And this is why you and I have so little basis for agreement.

Science concludes nothing without controlled hypothesis testing. If science could generate truthful results without all that testing it would. But it can't. And therefore neither can the "Scientific World View". The fact that the Scientific World View cuts corners on the process of getting to Truth makes it pseudoscience... Another belief system unwilling to submit to the rigors of science.

And nowhere is this more flagrant than, in direct opposition to science, this "Scientific World View" promotes the practice of concluding something doesn't exist that has not actually been tested for. Works for some Atheists. But science hasn't drawn that conclusion just yet.

Surely you can see the contradiction between the scientific method, and this other thing people have falsely named "Scientific world view"....

Which is why I suggested you call or, or adopt a label for your position, such as Materialist Perspective, or Rationalist Perspective that is not mislabeled and misleading.

The Materialist position, and the Rationalist position are honorable, as is Atheism, as a system of belief. But they all lose integrity promising to be more than they are.

[Spence Tepper]

Also AR
You will notice that I am not actually defending whether God exists.

Whereas you are arguing God doesn't exist because science has provn it.

God has been disproven by science, you said.

My argument is that such a conclusion hasn't been drawn yet scientifically, as per the scientific mythod.

My conclusion isn't that God exists. I'm arguing that as of today science hasn't actually drawn that conclusion.

Again, the difference is that you are defending a conclusio, while I am defending actual scientific investigaton.

[Spence Tepper]

The real God, today, is, largely unknown.

But the unknown contains we have learned to now.

To deny the unknown exists, to reject the unknown as non - existent because it hasn't been tested yet, when science is practiced there in the unknown every day, is pseudoscience.

Ignorance has never been the basis of any real knowledge.

[Spence Tepper]

One more point emerges.
People here have attempted to argue that things untested don't exist and are just silly by bringing up lists of silly things... Garden fairies, gnomes, dragons, other science fiction races from other planets, etc. The argument goes that we have no evidence for these either, so it is reasonable to reject anything for which in all these years, science hasn't tested, and therefore there is no evidence for.

This is, at its core, a means to denigrate all things we don't know yet. Not all things possible are silly.
It is the same exact argument used to defend racism, sexism and many things today we accept as fact but which hundreds of years ago looked silly.

In fact every scientific discovery was disputed. People insisted before the results that reality is much different. They did this in ignorance dismissing the need for science.

Ignorance isn't science. And ignorance tends to be proven wrong by science.

Many of those things appeared silly before we tested and learned.

This is the thinking that said years ago.... Before facts were uncovered, before tests were undertaken to demonstrate an alternative truth was the truth.... All dismissed in ignorance, claiming no real science proved these prejudices were fact.

Hundred years ago, the common sentiment was...

"Blacks have never been scholars, they can't do it. Just look at the evidence. There is none."

"Women have never proven their ability in battle, they can't be allowed to be soldiers. Just look at them, they aren't as powerful as men and they are emotional...And that's also why they should never be allowed to vote."

"Humans will never fly, they have never had wings. What, you think they are going to grow wings? (Eye roll)

"Matter is solid....."

"Time moves at an unchanging pace,"

"It's impossible to break the sound barrier.."

For every silly notion that hasn't been investigated, there are far more that only appear silly but will become our reality as science proceeds.

If you think you know the truth without actual hypothesis testing, the history of science weighs heavily against you.

Ignorance can never be the basis of knowledge.

[umami]

"So that is why, to claim broadly God doesn't exist based on these ancient myths, but to ignore the very real function of God in people's lives, can only happen if you personally, or some group dismisses the full and functional definition of God as a symbolic archetype built into the human subconscious."

Hey, Spence.

Oh! Most religious people conceive of God as an actual Being, not just a subconscious archetype. That must be where we're getting our signals crossed. Who would disagree that people through the Ages have conceived of God or gods and that they serve personal and cultural functions? That's a given. And let's say we agree that Deity is a built-in subconscious archetype too. Interview question: In your thinking, does the existence of the subconscious archetype prove the existence of a Being? How so? When you use the word "God" in discussions here, are you referring to the archetype or the Being? For you are they one in the same?

[um]

@ Umami

Besides the functional existence or non existence of "god" in any culture, as presented by the priest class, the exoteric meaning there is also an esoteric meaning related to the inner experience of so called mystics.

The description of the experience of mystics is often, mostly "used" to "prove" the presentation of the divine to the public. Reason why some mystics, seen as the founders of world-religions, call the priest class "thieves" ... as that is what they do ... they use the description for their own purpose.

Any person, having an inner experience, can only express it in the language of his days, containing the concepts that have no relation with the described experience.
Naturally also these descriptions must vary in the course of time and the development of culture..

Yet, apart from the linguistic , cultural differences, these description have some elements in common.

The description of the experiences of the senses can be different but they all have in common, sight, hearing etc. The same holds for the so called inner experiences.

Wherever there is conscious functioning, there must be an "carrier" and that carrier are the senses, both inner and outer.

What is discussed are the "descriptions" not what is described and what one person deems necessary to describe he will do and omit the rest. Omitting doesn't mean it was not there ... humans are selective observers ... and ... describers.

God is what it is
not what it appears to be
let alone how it is described by selective interested humans.

[um]

@ 777

>>What do U want for birthday?<<

That depends who you ask and what desires they have.

Having a desire means, that you have experienced a thing before, that you "know" what you are longing for.

There are things known and unknown. Nobody can long for what he doesn't know.

But .... from what YOU write here again and again ... the answer must be love.

As your guru stated that: "God is love and love is God"... he knows what it is, he has it, he is it so he cannot have a desire.

Tomorrow is my birthday ... hahjaha

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
You wrote:
"Oh! Most religious people conceive of God as an actual Being, not just a subconscious archetype. That must be where we're getting our signals crossed. "

A corporeal God is actually not a universal belief. Interestingly, mystics report and emphasize the inner experience as the reality, whereas only fundamentalism emphasizes the corporeal existence. It is this latter description that is very easy to discredit. But the range of spiritual beliefs is far wider than that. Hence it is a straw man argument to claim God has been disproven by selecting these corporeal definitions for consideration only. Although, it is fair to say they are ripe for actual hypothesis testing and most likely to be proven false.

Socrates, for example, claimed that he saw the earth from the heavens and it was round. This was thousands of years before science confirmed this.

But he also described forces, and even the placement of the stars quite differently than what science has painstakingly detailed in what we know without doubt is fact.

But to compare the two is, as Neural Surfer pointed out, specious. Because a closer examination of Socrates writings reveals his claims that the inner reality he was describing isn't the outer reality. This outer reality, Socrates said, was a very degraded, largely imaginary, version of the true reality, which is quite different. So we cannot take descriptions of one reality and compare it to the science of another and say that one is false, when what is false is the presumption Socrates was discussing the physical outer reality, when he claimed openly he was not.

A true hypothesis testing of the existence of God would require first, a solid theory agreed upon by a scientific community, inclusive of those who study the different definitions of God, and then a hypothesis all agreed upon that would be a real test of God. Short of that, people are just expressing their opinions. I think that's fine so long as we all understand that.

With so many different beliefs, maybe it's wrong to roll them all up into "God" as if that were a single thing.

If you read the book of Job and Ecclesiastes, you will find that all the best, solid and unassailable arguments for Atheism are presented there. And not by some villains, but the authors of those books!

When we read the arguments of Atheists today, they take their most defensible points from the Holy Bible!

Religious and spiritual beliefs are a range of things, and many quite personal. To acknowledge the reality of this is to honor a scientific, exploratory view.

My problem is when people pronounce "Science has proven..." or "Science has disproven" when that is clearly false because the scientific investigation has not been conducted. And also, I have a problem with the pseudoscience of "Scientific world view" because it doesn't require the rigors of the scientific method to draw its conclusions.

This whole notion that lack of scientific investigation is de facto scientific evidence that something untested doesn't exist is purely illogical. It's a ridiculous argument, and here I can only comment that the King of the Scientific World View isn't actually wearing the clothes of science.

My argument, actually, isn't even about the existence of God. From this world, who knows?

My argument is about claims of "science" that are actually pseudoscience.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami!
I realize you asked me some personal questions about my system of belief:
"And let's say we agree that Deity is a built-in subconscious archetype too. Interview question: In your thinking, does the existence of the subconscious archetype prove the existence of a Being? How so? When you use the word "God" in discussions here, are you referring to the archetype or the Being? For you are they one in the same?"

Let me give an example and how I view it. FIrst, I'm a Satsangi of the RSSB faith. That's by belief system. But I will distinguish belief from fact. The belief system has evidence to me in a variety of experiences. And the Presence of God is a great comfort. It is personally factual, subjectively factual. The regions I have traversed are much more detailed perceptually, than this waking life. So, it's real to me.

But I was encouraged, by Satsangis, when I was a young man, to consider research on Meditation practice, which captured my interest, and pulled me away from nuclear and surface physics, as a major, to experimental and physiological psychology.

What that has taught me is that my personal experience is only a single dimension, no matter how expansive it seems. I'm still just able to view as a single point of consciousness, even expanded to include others. And that view is very humanly fallible. What I remember of my deeper explorations of meditation, is remembered by a forgetful and weak brain.

But as a result of my education, encouraged by my engineering, medical practice and biology friends who were Satsangis, is that this could all be part of the human brain.

The human brain has been evolving for a long time. It is an incredible museum. If these inner experiences are nothing more than travels through that museum, they are worth the price of admission, which is unalloyed love and worship for God.

Not simply because it is a fantastic and loving journey, but because it is integration, reunion with ourselves, parts of ourselves that normally are hidden and disconnected.

That is what I believe, based upon my limited experience.

[umami]

Spence,

What is your God hypothesis?

Being? Archetype? Something else?

[umami]

Spence,
Scratch the hypothesis question.

[umami]

"unalloyed love and worship for God"

Spence,

That's the tricky part, when personal experience leads to the conclusion that there's no such thing to love and worship. What then?

[um]

@ Umamai

It was said to me ... the pull must come from within and if it is not there, it is just not there and there is nothing YOU can do [ but to accept]

But maybe Spence knows better.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami!
My hypothesis isn't a single one.
But hypothesis testing on this subject is of great interest to me.
There has been a lot of research on Intercessory Prayer as I've been reading over the last two days...Intercessory Prayer is a Prayer group praying for folks they generally don't know personally. And the dependent variables are a mix of medical outcomes of the people they are praying for.

Overall, the effects are mixed. A recent study showed no effect, or actually worse effect. More medical complications if people are praying for you and you are told they are.

In another research, women working with a fertility clinic, in a randomized study, were divided into intercessory prayer and non-intercessory prayer groups. Turns out there was a significant increase in those who became pregnant who were in the group that had prayer groups praying for them.

I was surprised to see how much research there really is on this. Which I must thank AR for pointing me to.

It's been going on for years.

The interesting thing is that by having the intercessory prayer groups completely independent of the people they are praying for, this is really a test of some sort of supernatural intervention.

And that makes the hypotheses a little loose. Is this testing ESP, or God's willingness to help or not help, or some other supernatural power under the control and direction of the prayor? It's a bit loose. But it is based on Christian scripture where believers are encouraged to pray for healing and to pray for one another.

On the other hand, it is not testing the power of you praying or your family praying for you and others you know, who also know and participate in this prayer. That would be more a test of the power of psychological mechanisms, which I believe are as much a part of our reality as any other, as a test of supernatural forces.

Testing supernatural forces would require much greater control. And I wouldn't even call them supernatural.

I believe we are all connected, but by what?

Now, testing for the effects of ones' own prayer and meditation has yielded a large series of positive results. Even though these practices began as worship, they include mindfulness, which is not worship, and they yield similar effects. That could mean that God is there or not there for you. It could mean that you are triggering the same physiological mechanisms triggered by worship without the necessity of worship. Or it could mean that simply by withdrawing from the distractions of the world, you naturally grow closer to God, even if you don't know it. But these are not long term meditators, so these effects are for casual practitioners, at least what has been measured in this line of research.

The effects of health benefits are significant and have been replicated.

So this draws us closer, from a scientific perspective, to the science of belief and worship, not a test of the supernatural.

Defining God as a system of belief is much easier to test, and has yielded positive health results, both physical and mental.

There are also studies of the supernatural, and some of them have yielded results that statistically, cannot be explained by conventional means. However, that research is in its relative infancy, and lacks the control necessary for a truly controlled study.

But if you ask if belief in God is beneficial to your health and longevity, that has a bit of evidence to support it.

For example there have been replicated mortality studies indicating that, in America, if you attend Church, your life expectancy increases by 3-6 years over those who do not.

Several refinements have been made to try to control for such things as level of social activity and general health and mobility, as well as doing other non-religious public service work

These are contributing factors but not enough to fully account for the gap.

So, the active practice of belief is good for you. If you want to add years to your life, start attending Church if you can.

Of course there may be several other things you could do to help extend your life as well.

People who are wealthier also tend to live longer, so getting good medical care is likely to be a bit step everyone can take.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami!
You wrote:
"That's the tricky part, when personal experience leads to the conclusion that there's no such thing to love and worship. What then?"

Let me suggest something to you as a point of worship.

The Amazing Physical Creation that is YOU...

Your consciousness is only a tiny part of who you are. But you can expand it by connecting with some of the unconscious parts of yourself, including the wiser, smarter, patient parts deeply buried inside you.

Have faith in that. Those mechanisms are there! They are worthy of your worship and they will present themselves to you as light, sound, a model of the heavens stars and planets, event the benevolent form of Christ or your Master, and the purest benevolent divinity. Love that. It's real. The symbolic representation deeply buried in you is a symbol you can understand that is a way to have a real relationship, an intimate relationship with a complex AI system that otherwise would boggle your mind.

Worship that. It isn't you in the sense of your own thinking. It's YOU the real you, your physical machinery and all the amazing subconscious mechanisms built into it..A true museum that contains eons of history.

It's "You" in the sense of the 1.2 Billion years in development brain and body, and the magnificent genius it contains, the untapped aptitude available to anyone willing to acknowledge they aren't in the driver seat at all. To seek that, knowing it's there, even if you know nothing about it.

We are largely unconscious. Mindfullness and Worship of a subjective deity as real parts of yourself will take you a very long way, and generate substantial happiness, integration and harmony. At the very least this will yield greater awareness of this amazing machine and its inner workings. That's yours, you carry that with you. Own it, and mine that wealth.

[umami]

Spence,

Here's an idea. There are theistic practitioners of meditation such as Hindus and atheistic practitioners of meditation such as Buddhists. Controlling for measurable lifestyle differences, genetic markers and family histories, compare the relative health. Identical twins, where one is Hindu and the other Buddhist, would make for especially good comparison.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami!
You wrote:
"Here's an idea. There are theistic practitioners of meditation such as Hindus and atheistic practitioners of meditation such as Buddhists. Controlling for measurable lifestyle differences, genetic markers and family histories, compare the relative health. Identical twins, where one is Hindu and the other Buddhist, would make for especially good comparison."

Yes, this would be an excellent avenue, really a great career of investigation. It will at least contrast the different levels of efficacy among different beliefs, and physiology, although we would need to control for years of experience in each practice as well.

It wouldn't be a test of the "supernatural" but a test of the ability to develop what is within us, to uncover which mechanisms seem most effective. I would suggest that additional studies may unveil that the level of mental focus, free of distraction, is one of the more important factors in generating positive physiological results, and conscious levels of internal experience. Doesn't matter what you are focusing on internally...as a hypothesis.

On the other hand, it may turn out that we focus best, not on what we choose, but what we discover within us.

Shabd, for instance, the audible sound, or series of sounds. When I hear it I attend to it. And it carries me within. Focus on belief gets me to that place. But so does reading a book, or standing still in a train station. Any form of mental focus yields Shabd to me, even focus under conditions of stress and anxiety. I feel loved, and interpret that is God's protection. But separate from that, is the fact that this happens.

I wonder if great athletes, capable of intense mental focus, don't also have, as a physiological part of their focus, a witness of internal sound.

That makes Shabd a physiological mechanism connected to focus. Or more to the point, any mental focus beyond a certain level yields awareness of Shabd / internal sound.

All this is open to research simply because we strip it of the supernatural, and rather than dismiss it, we acknowledge something is going on, possibly of significant physical benefit, fully represented in physiology.

[umami]

Spence,

Okay, so when you write "God," can I take it for shorthand of all you just described? It's very different from some sort of King in the Sky, the common view.

[um]

@ 777

That link opens up to many pages .... I do not know which needle to seek where in the hay

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
You wrote:
"Okay, so when you write "God," can I take it for shorthand of all you just described? It's very different from some sort of King in the Sky, the common view."

Yes, entirely so. Whenever I say words like "Divine, Spirit, Perfect Master, Regions..." these are just words to describe visual and emotional experiences, not supernatural ones. Even if I can't explain it.

When I see a large expansive room of infinite cielings and beams of light everywhere I could describe that is the gateway to the regions.

But you can take it for an actual experience without any proven connection to anything else, except something magnificent in my own brain.

When My Master shows up inside, benevolent and helpful in re-directing me, you may think of that as a symbolic representation, fully HD projection from something beyond my conscious thinking brain, but all within this brain and body.

If there is a supernatural connection, how could anyone really know.

But if seeing Baba Ji fills me with Shabd and the experience of light and overwhelming love, a feeling of being so loved, in every fiber of my awareness, that all I want to do is be a river of that love, that's all in me.

Rather than say "that's illusion, that's not real" more accurately is to say this is heightened awareness of what is inside me, heightened cognitive awareness.

Remember, there is no actual outer or inner distinction in the brain beyond a certain level of awareness. It's all inside. Everything you see is an edited reproduction from your senses, external or internal. But what a magnificent machine!

Does that help?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um!
You asked
"Okay, so when you write "God," can I take it for shorthand of all you just described? It's very different from some sort of King in the Sky, the common view."

Yes. The word "God", "Spirit", "Love" and all the internal experiences I have related are subjective, whether they are fully HD or just words we use to describe those experiences. Peace beyond understanding.

Why use such words? Because we don't really know, and any other label may be false. These are nice generic words to describe wonderful things, but they are place holders.

If you make a habit to translate the use of these words by others: "Divine, Spirit, God's Love, God" as the internal or external experience of things unexplained, then you can honor anyone's actual experience without needing to believe in something that you have no exposure to or connection with. You are simply translating these into the experiences that are so powerful, people have used these non-corporeal labels. Their experience is real, but their label is just a placeholder.

When people say "I Know God Loves Me!" Let your internal translator simply put this into your English "I feel a reliable and wonderful experience of the Presence of something great and loving...etc..."

We need to translate these things into our own language and experience so we don't dismiss people having real lives and real experiences as if they were non-existant.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
I actually miss-spoke in my answer to you earlier.

I wrote
"The symbolic representation deeply buried in you is a symbol you can understand that is a way to have a real relationship, an intimate relationship with a complex AI system that otherwise would boggle your mind."

Actually we are, human consciousness, the AI attempting to connect to the real intelligence built into this machine.

[um]

@ Spence

I can't remember having asked for something.

As I wrote before, if a person wants to share his experience with me, whatever that experience might be, I lent him my ears.

If he or she, radiates happiness of sorts, I rejoice in that radiation .. their telling, their company is my reality, not their personal experience, nor the description thereof.

Otherwise, the content has no meaning for me and the question of respect doesn't arise.

So I enjoyed the moments I spent in private with the man that you consider your master. In those moments it just didn't matter to me, how he was known in society, what his role was etc.

Labels from my mouth about things I only heard of are utterly meaningless, so I do tend not to use them.

[spence Tepper]

Hi Um!
Actually I'd written this in response to Umami's question.