Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

[mitchellmckain]

OK. I still don't see how it logically follows that because something is "an end in itself" it will "continue indefinitely." ?

So you don't see a contradiction between saying that "learning is what life is all about" and then saying that "you eventually reach a time in your life where there is no reason/point in learning anything anymore".

That life is inherently worth living and needs no God to make it so.

Whereas I think that this assertion is an assertion of faith and actually one that is equivalent in my mind to a faith in God. This is because in my own pragmatic way of thinking this is where word "God" begins to have meaning for me (I was not raised as a believer in any kind god).

I agree that "life is inherently worth living" is a subjective assertion. But what I mean by it has nothing to do with faith of any kind.

Even subjectively it is not just an observational statement. It is certainly not purely a matter of evidence. Life isn't just about evidence and observation it is also a matter of decision and participation.

In scientific observation your conclusion is not supposed to depend on what you want to be the case, well you cannot reduce life to that because what you want to be the case IS a critical part of your participation in life.

I don't know if it is a question of standards. Do you consider scientific evidence to be the only kind of evidence that can be called objective?

Yes. You yourself said that there really is no such thing as objective observation and I explained that science has a method of getting objective observations in abstract.

I agree with you that science isn't generally helpful in understanding religion, with some limited exceptions such as neuroscience. But then of course there are the social sciences. History, anthropology, psychology all offer great insights into religion(s).

Neuroscience? Oh yeah, neuroscience explains neural activity and you use that in religion don't you. But in that case we can say that nuclear physics is an exception as well, because you use atomic nuclei in religion too, don't you? LOL

Oh I suppose you can include in your definition of God something that contradicts objective evidence, but that really only disproves the inclusion of this in the definition of God.

I thought we were talking about, not "my definition" of God, but the Christian God, as represented in the Bible and generally accepted Christian theology. That, (in addition to the gods of other religions) is the God that I judge not to exist. I wouldn't see the point in making up my own definition of God and then arguing it doesn't exist!

Does whose definition we are talking about change what I am saying? No. If some fundies include something in their definition that contradicts evolution for example then all the objective evidence proves is that the inclusion of this in their definition is wrong.

[Angela]

Hi Angela,

The interesting thing to me is that I feel like I have gone through a similar transition, and yet it has brought me deeper into my faith, and in a sense a good deal closer to the Bible. I wonder why that is? Feel free to ask or share such questions as seem helpful and pertinent to you. What ceased to explain? What freedom opened up to you? And what (if anything) do you see lacking in what you can deduce about where I stand?

Well, if we want to explore why and how our respective "transitions" brought us to different places, I think the first question is: What were the similarities and differences? It could be that our experiences were only superficially similar, or not. In either case, it is probably in the differences that we will find the answer to why the outcomes were different, yes?

How about I describe your experience as I understand it so far, and you can correct the misunderstandings and elaborate as you wish. Then I'll describe my experience a little bit, and we can begin a comparison.

Until college, you believed in God because you thought God's existence explained things that could not be explained any other way. As you became more educated, you found that there were fewer and fewer things that could not be explained by science, so your faith in God was shaken. You wanted to keep your faith, but were beginning to find it difficult to do so when it seemed to go against reason. You attended Intervarsity meetings where everyone seemed happy and sincere, but you didn't find anything there that strengthened your faith. Then you were outside on a beautiful day and had an epiphany. It occurred to you that there was no apparent reason for the existence of nature, life, people, beauty, the universe, etc. And yet, here it all was. Why? The answer to that must be God. This insight formed the foundation of a stronger faith. You now understood God, not as the explanation for what cannot otherwise be explained, but as the reason for that which otherwise has no apparent reason.

I can identify with the epiphany you had. I think I had a similar one at my Great Grandmother's funeral when I was 22. I looked at her body, and knew that she wasn't there. The body in front of me was not the woman I had known and loved. So I knew she must be somewhere else. I felt this truth resonate through my whole being. I knew. I relate this experience without analysis, but we can discuss it further if you find it interesting and relevant.

Now onto my transition out of Christianity. I was married and in grad school. My husband and I were having a hard time finding a church we could feel a part of. The churches we visited tended to be either staid and dead-feeling but tolerant and thoughtful, or vibrant and spirit-filled but dogmatic and intolerant. Also, I was beginning to feel that most of the nonbelievers I knew didn't fit into any of the molds my Christianity would have me put them in. Good, kind, generous, honest people didn't believe in Jesus. I looked at the people I knew and didn't see any fundamental difference between Christians and others. Thirdly, I was learning more about the psychology of religious experience (William James' Varieties of Religious Experience was key), and wondering how much stock I could really put into my religious experience as way of knowing anything outside of myself. Lastly, there were the ever-present problems of evil and free will. So at some point, I admitted to myself that I didn't know. That it was possible that Christianity wasn't true. I decided to take a step back, to try to look at it objectively, be open to whatever I might discover, and see what happened. So I went to the library. Several actually. I read a bunch of books from varying perspectives. And I concluded that Christianity is a human creation, that Jesus was an ordinary man who got transformed into a myth after his death, and that if a God exists, Christianity has no claim to special knowledge of what this God may be.

OK Wonders, your turn.

[Angela]

OK. I still don't see how it logically follows that because something is "an end in itself" it will "continue indefinitely." ?

So you don't see a contradiction between saying that "learning is what life is all about" and then saying that "you eventually reach a time in your life where there is no reason/point in learning anything anymore".

Ok, now I think YOU are being obtuse! Whether or not learning becomes pointless at some time in one's life (which certainly may happen; consider alzheimers or coma) is not at issue here. You didn't say that, logically, learning would "continue throughout one's life." You said that logically it would "continue indefinitely." Here's your statement that began this discussion:

To learn and grow without limit is what I believe to be the meaning of eternal life, which can only be found in a relationship with an infinite God.

And then, when I said that "eternal life" doesn't seem to be "in the nature of life itself," you wrote:

It is in the nature of life itself that we find this purpose is to learn and grow. If this is an end in itself then it would seem logical that this would continue indefinitely.

So is learning and growing indefinitely different from learning and growing without limit, which is your definition of eternal life?

I am going to let you respond to this before I respond to the rest of your post. Please explain yourself.

[Pseudonym]

EDIT: I forgot to finish one section. Fixed.

Speaking of awe, did anyone else see last night’s NOVA program (in the U.S.) about research on the epigenome that is already producing great strides in medicine, including amazing progress against cancer?

No, but I consult for the cancer genomics group where I work, so I'm familiar.

To me, the awe, wonder, and majesty produced by advances in the sciences just in the last five years is vastly superior to the awe possible by imagining one of the supreme beings posited in the contradictory, confused, and often ridiculous ancient texts.

I think I count as someone who deeply appreciates both. Whether or not A is "superior" to B is relative to the measure that you use.

Science has done some wonderful stuff in the last five years, but it hasn't produced a novel that's superior to one by Dan Brown. (It's not like it's even difficult (given a little training and mentoring) for a typically literate person to write a superior novel to one by Dan Brown.) But you judge the greatness of science versus the greatness of a novel using different measures.

I’d like to ask the non-literalist believers here a theodicy question. Do you believe the Biblical God created the world?

I don't know what you mean by "the Biblical God", since the Bible does not give a single, consistent picture of "God".

Certainly, I agree that the entity that inspired the Biblical authors to write is the same entity that is the great creative force in the universe. But that can't be what you meant, since this is indistinguishable from deism.

If so, why do you think he either made, or if you believe in evolution, allowed, wasps to do what they do as described by evileye? Similarly, what about horse and deer flies and those flies that deposit larvae around the eyes of deer and cows so that subsequently the hatching eggs can eat through the animals eyeball and into their brains causing them unbearable suffering?

I don't know that God "made" evolution any more than God "made" mathematics. Parasites are, surely, an inevitable consequence of evolution. I don't think it's possible to have evolution without them. So in that sense I'm not sure that God "made" them any more than he "made" any other kinds of parasites, such as grifters and derivatives traders.

[mitchellmckain]

So is learning and growing indefinitely different from learning and growing without limit, which is your definition of eternal life?

I am going to let you respond to this before I respond to the rest of your post. Please explain yourself.

Learning and growing are essential elements in what it means to live. Eternal life means living forever -- not simply existing for ever and therefore yes learning and growing indefinitely or without limit is neccessarily a part of what eternal life means.

[Angela]

So is learning and growing indefinitely different from learning and growing without limit, which is your definition of eternal life?

I am going to let you respond to this before I respond to the rest of your post. Please explain yourself.

Learning and growing are essential elements in what it means to live. Eternal life means living forever -- not simply existing for ever and therefore yes learning and growing indefinitely or without limit is neccessarily a part of what eternal life means.

OK, I think I gotcha. You are saying that IF there is life after death (which you believe there is, so for you it's a given) THEN it would make sense that learning and growing would be part of that eternal life, indefinitely, of course.

See, what I thought you were saying was that SINCE learning and growing is the purpose of life, IT FOLLOWS that learning and growing (and, of course, life) would continue indefinitely (eternally). I thought you were making a logical argument for the existence of life after death, and it didn't make sense to me. I'm going to quote you one more time:

It is in the nature of life itself that we find this purpose is to learn and grow. If this is an end in itself then it would seem logical that this would continue indefinitely.

My original interpretation of these two sentences still makes more sense to me, especially since you wrote them in response to my statement that eternal life isn't in the nature of life itself. Forgive me for beating this dead and rotting horse, but I'm thinking this may point to one of the reasons you and I seem to be going around in circles here.

To help me better understand where you are coming from, let me you another question. I understand that you don't believe that there is any objective evidence either for or against the existence of God. Do you think that logic or reasoning are of any use in determining if God exists?

[Angela]

I agree that "life is inherently worth living" is a subjective assertion. But what I mean by it has nothing to do with faith of any kind. I mean 2 things: that I (subjectively) find my life worth living, and that from what I observe from other people's behavior, choices, and words, the overwhelming majority of other people find their lives worth living as well. I conclude that there is something about the experience of life itself that people find meaningful. Do you not think this is true?

No. Because even subjectively it is not just an observational statement. It is certainly not purely a matter of evidence. Life isn't just about evidence and observation it is also a matter of decision and participation.

In scientific observation your conclusion is not supposed to depend on what you want to be the case, well you cannot reduce life to that because what you want to be the case IS a critical part of your participation in life.

I understand what you are saying, and our inescapable subjectivity does make it impossible for us to KNOW without a "shadow of a doubt." That fact shouldn't keep us from making our best judgements. I am asking YOU what YOU think about the statements I made above, inescapable subjectivity notwithstanding.

Do you consider scientific evidence to be the only kind of evidence that can be called objective?

Yes.

OK, then a couple other questions: do you think evidence can have degrees of subjectivity/objectivity, or is it "black and white"? And is subjective evidence useful in understanding life, the world, the universe, ourselves, religion, God (any or all of the above)?

I agree with you that science isn't generally helpful in understanding religion, with some limited exceptions such as neuroscience. But then of course there are the social sciences. History, anthropology, psychology all offer great insights into religion(s).

Neuroscience? Oh yeah, neuroscience explains neural activity and you use that in religion don't you. But in that case we can say that nuclear physics is an exception as well, because you use atomic nuclei in religion too, don't you? LOL

Dismissive sarcasm. Not a sign of thoughtful consideration. If you have any interest in what I might have meant by mentioning neuroscience, here's a starting point:
http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html
Any comment on the value of social sciences in understanding religion?

Oh I suppose you can include in your definition of God something that contradicts objective evidence, but that really only disproves the inclusion of this in the definition of God.

I thought we were talking about, not "my definition" of God, but the Christian God, as represented in the Bible and generally accepted Christian theology. That, (in addition to the gods of other religions) is the God that I judge not to exist. I wouldn't see the point in making up my own definition of God and then arguing it doesn't exist!

Does whose definition we are talking about change what I am saying? No. If some fundies include something in their definition that contradicts evolution for example then all the objective evidence proves is that the inclusion of this in their definition is wrong.

I thought the God you believe exists is the Christian God. I'm aware it is not the fundamentalist version of the Christian God.
Would it be true then that if you did encounter objective evidence that somehow disproved your definition of God, you would change your definition to fit the evidence? (I'm thinking the answer is yes but trying not to assume anything here.)

[mitchellmckain]

I understand what you are saying, and our inescapable subjectivity does make it impossible for us to KNOW without a "shadow of a doubt." That fact shouldn't keep us from making our best judgements. I am asking YOU what YOU think about the statements I made above, inescapable subjectivity notwithstanding.

Hmmm are you talking about this?

The evidence I refer to is not subjective. For example, there is evidence that the Christian God, like other gods before and after him, is a human creation. That does not prove that something matching the Christian God's description does not exist. (Mermaids may be a human invention, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that we might one day find one.) It does, however, make it fairly unlikely. In the absence of conflicting evidence, I judge it most likely that the Christian God does not exist.

Not very specific but ok...

there is evidence that the Christian God, like other gods before and after him, is a human creation.

I would say that this is just as absurd as claiming that there is evidence that electrons like other physical entities of human history(phlogiston and centrifugal force) is a human creation. It is true in both cases in so far as it is completely irrelevant.

Perhaps the God you believe in is very different from the traditional Christian God. I just read your blog post on the topic, and it appears that you reasoned your way to understanding God, rather than looked to the Bible or other authority for guidance on how to understand him. Is this accurate?

I find the phrase "reasoned my way to God" to be very ambiguous. What do you mean by that? Do I believe things because the Bible says so? No. Like I said, I was not raised Christian and so that would be absurd. I believe in the Bible because of what it says. Now at this time in my life, I do consider the Bible to be authoritative - at least more authoritative than any human being or religious tradition, that is. Which still doesn't amount to believing something because the Bible says it. The Bible says a snake talked to Adam and Eve and I do not believe that.

Did you read my intro in the Fellowship Hall? I was a scientist before I was a Christian. For me the question was whether I could find any value and meaning in religion when science was already an inseperable part of my perceptual process. The first challenge to confront was what meaning could I find in this word God? I would not call that reasoning my way to God, but perhaps you would. I would call it using my brain to understand reality, which is something I think that everyone should do, IF in fact they don't.

OK, then a couple other questions: do you think evidence can have degrees of subjectivity/objectivity, or is it "black and white"? And is subjective evidence useful in understanding life, the world, the universe, ourselves, religion, God (any or all of the above)?

Can you write a proceedure so that anyone following that proceedure obtains the same result. This is a yes or no question, but determining whether the answer is yes or no in a specific case may be a matter of consensus by the scientific community. So what do you think? Is that black and white... or not?

Perhaps you think there is some other methodology for abstracting objective observations and conclusions from our fundamentally subjective experience of reality. The one that science uses is what I know.

Neuroscience? Oh yeah, neuroscience explains neural activity and you use that in religion don't you. But in that case we can say that nuclear physics is an exception as well, because you use atomic nuclei in religion too, don't you? LOL

Dismissive sarcasm. Not a sign of thoughtful consideration. If you have any interest in what I might have meant by mentioning neuroscience, here's a starting point:
http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html

If I could think of any dismissive sarcasm for this one too I would use it. It does not surprise me in the least that what some religious nuts call a spritual experience is just a biological phenomenon like an increased flow of oxygen to the brain. LOL Why I bet that singing in church produces the same sensation. LOL

Any comment on the value of social sciences in understanding religion?

Yes I think it is invaluable in understanding the sociological aspects of religion and there is much in this science that can benefit the understanding and efforts of the religious. But the same goes for any science in regards to that aspect of things that is studied by it.

I thought the God you believe exists is the Christian God. I'm aware it is not the fundamentalist version of the Christian God.

"the Christian God" is a loaded term. You say you read my blog but did you follow the comments link?

There is only one God and He is what He is regardless what anyone thinks about Him. As for the understanding of this God by those who call themselves Christian, well what are we going to call THE "Christian" understanding of God? Is this the common denominator, the majority, or the Pope's? You see I don't accept the assumption of dogmatism that there is one correct Christian understanding of God, but that the Christian understanding of God is a constellation of ideas surrounding a definitive minimal agreement. And anyway how does this change my argument. If something in this consellation of ideas is contradicted by the objective evidence then all that proves is that those particular things are incorrect.

Would it be true then that if you did encounter objective evidence that somehow disproved your definition of God, you would change your definition to fit the evidence? (I'm thinking the answer is yes but trying not to assume anything here.)

Well I can say yes, but since I am quite certian that is impossible, my yes is a pretty empty affirmative. I believe this is impossible for the same reason that I believe that objective proof for the existence of God is also impossible. Which is why you will find me arguing against the Christians when it comes to any of the arguments or proofs for the existence of God. I strongly believe that the difference between the physical and spiritual aspects of reality is directly connected to the difference between objective and subjective perceptions. And I can explain why too.

I believe that everything is a form of energy, but that there are physical forms of energy and there are spiritual forms of energy. What is the difference? Physical forms of energy are actually all a part of one single form of energy that we can identify with the mathematical space-time structure of the universe as understood by physics. Spiritual forms of energy are not a part of this single form of energy and thus are not related to physical things by this web of mathematical relationships like time, distance and the forces described in physics. These spiritual forms of energy DO interact with physical forms of energy but from outside this web of mathematical relationships. However it is these mathematical relationships binding physical things to physical observers into this single form of the universe that makes it possible to study them with this scientific method of getting objective observations.

[Angela]

I agree that "life is inherently worth living" is a subjective assertion. But what I mean by it has nothing to do with faith of any kind. I mean 2 things: that I (subjectively) find my life worth living, and that from what I observe from other people's behavior, choices, and words, the overwhelming majority of other people find their lives worth living as well. I conclude that there is something about the experience of life itself that people find meaningful. Do you not think this is true?

No. Because even subjectively it is not just an observational statement. It is certainly not purely a matter of evidence. Life isn't just about evidence and observation it is also a matter of decision and participation.

In scientific observation your conclusion is not supposed to depend on what you want to be the case, well you cannot reduce life to that because what you want to be the case IS a critical part of your participation in life.

I understand what you are saying, and our inescapable subjectivity does make it impossible for us to KNOW without a "shadow of a doubt." That fact shouldn't keep us from making our best judgements. I am asking YOU what YOU think about the statements I made above, inescapable subjectivity notwithstanding.

Hmmm are you talking about this?

NO, Mitchell, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the quote ABOVE, meaning, as is common in many uses of the English language such as this, DIRECTLY above. For your convenience, I've cut and pasted it, along with your original response, ABOVE again. If you will kindly scroll up, and stop at the first quote in this post, you will find some statements ending in "Do you not think this is true?" I would like to know what you think, understanding of course that your judgement of the validity of the statements will be a subjective one.

Perhaps the God you believe in is very different from the traditional Christian God. I just read your blog post on the topic, and it appears that you reasoned your way to understanding God, rather than looked to the Bible or other authority for guidance on how to understand him. Is this accurate?

I believe in the Bible because of what it says. Now at this time in my life, I do consider the Bible to be authoritative - at least more authoritative than any human being or religious tradition, that is.

Did you read my intro in the Fellowship Hall? I was a scientist before I was a Christian. For me the question was whether I could find any value and meaning in religion when science was already an inseperable part of my perceptual process. The first challenge to confront was what meaning could I find in this word God? I would not call that reasoning my way to God, but perhaps you would. I would call it using my brain to understand reality, which is something I think that everyone should do, IF in fact they don't.

So, did you first define God in a way that had meaning to you, and then read the Bible and find that the God you had conceived of was there? Did you consider any other religious texts?

Using my brain to understand reality. Yes, thank you, that's what I mean. Wouldn't you say that includes reason? Do you think it includes anything else? How does one go about using one's brain to understand reality?

OK, then a couple other questions: do you think evidence can have degrees of subjectivity/objectivity, or is it "black and white"? And is subjective evidence useful in understanding life, the world, the universe, ourselves, religion, God (any or all of the above)?

Can you write a proceedure so that anyone following that proceedure obtains the same result. This is a yes or no question, but determining whether the answer is yes or no in a specific case may be a matter of consensus by the scientific community. So what do you think? Is that black and white... or not?

Sounds pretty much black and white to me. It doesn't seem to leave room for allowing that certain evidence might be more or less objective or subjective than any other evidence (no gray).

Perhaps you think there is some other methodology for abstracting objective observations and conclusions from our fundamentally subjective experience of reality. The one that science uses is what I know.

OK, gotcha. My other question was, is subjective evidence useful in understanding life, the world, the universe, ourselves, religion, God (any or all of the above)?

Neuroscience? Oh yeah, neuroscience explains neural activity and you use that in religion don't you. But in that case we can say that nuclear physics is an exception as well, because you use atomic nuclei in religion too, don't you? LOL

Dismissive sarcasm. Not a sign of thoughtful consideration. If you have any interest in what I might have meant by mentioning neuroscience, here's a starting point:
http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html

If I could think of any dismissive sarcasm for this one too I would use it. It does not surprise me in the least that what some religious nuts call a spritual experience is just a biological phenomenon like an increased flow of oxygen to the brain. LOL Why I bet that singing in church produces the same sensation. LOL

So do only "religious nuts" have "spiritual experiences"? Could something be both a spiritual experience and a biological phenomenon? Or are there some spiritual experiences (perhaps those experienced by the religious and sane) that are not also biological (neurological) phenomona?

Any comment on the value of social sciences in understanding religion?

Yes I think it is invaluable in understanding the sociological aspects of religion and there is much in this science that can benefit the understanding and efforts of the religious. But the same goes for any science in regards to that aspect of things that is studied by it.

I think the social sciences are also useful disciplines for examining any religion, not only as a participant in it, but from outside of it, in order to understand its nature, origins, evolution, etc.

I thought the God you believe exists is the Christian God. I'm aware it is not the fundamentalist version of the Christian God.

"the Christian God" is a loaded term. You say you read my blog but did you follow the comments link?

Just went back and read the comments section, thanks. I have to say I am impressed. You have taken Christianity and the Bible and done something truly herculean with it. (This may sound like sarcasm; it isn't.) Your take on it all is unusual and appealing, even inspiring. I still find it logically and morally problematic, but certainly much less so than more standard interpretations. But it seems so clear to me that your interpretation of the Bible says more about YOU than it does about God or anything else. There are many other interpretations that are more supportable than yours, and many more that are at least as supportable. Your a priori commitment to the idea that God is perfect, loving, etc., constrains your interpretation. Yours is more internally consistent than many, I think because you seem to feel very free to shape your interpretation of the Bible to your idea of what God must be, rather than, like many Christians, thinking it has to be the other way around.

I strongly believe that the difference between the physical and spiritual aspects of reality is directly connected to the difference between objective and subjective perceptions. And I can explain why too.

I believe that everything is a form of energy, but that there are physical forms of energy and there are spiritual forms of energy. What is the difference? Physical forms of energy are actually all a part of one single form of energy that we can identify with the mathematical space-time structure of the universe as understood by physics. Spiritual forms of energy are not a part of this single form of energy and thus are not related to physical things by this web of mathematical relationships like time, distance and the forces described in physics. These spiritual forms of energy DO interact with physical forms of energy but from outside this web of mathematical relationships. However it is these mathematical relationships binding physical things to physical observers into this single form of the universe that makes it possible to study them with this scientific method of getting objective observations.

It seems plausible that other forms of energy may exist that we can't detect, even that some forms of energy may exist that don't obey the laws of physics. Of course if we can't detect them then we don't know that they exist. Or know anything about them at all. It's kind of like the question of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. Of course it might, but since we haven't run into any evidence of it, we can't say anything about what it is or is not like. Saying "I believe there are spiritual forms of energy" is like saying "I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." WHY do you believe that? On what basis?

[mitchellmckain]

NO, Mitchell, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the quote ABOVE, meaning, as is common in many uses of the English language such as this, DIRECTLY above. For your convenience, I've cut and pasted it, along with your original response, ABOVE again. If you will kindly scroll up, and stop at the first quote in this post, you will find some statements ending in "Do you not think this is true?" I would like to know what you think, understanding of course that your judgement of the validity of the statements will be a subjective one.

Well I can see that there has been some confusion and miscommunication here. I quoted more than I was actually responding to, so I fixed the post above where my "no" answer might have been misleading and confusing, for I was responding exclusively to your comment that this assertion that life was worthwhile was not any kind of faith and not to your question "Do you not think this is true?" Which was asking something a little too obvious to seem worth responding to. Saying that "there is something about the experience of life itself that people find meaningful" is like saying "people find true statements in mathematics". But does this mean that mathematics requires no proofs? No. So likewise does your statement fail to establish that faith is not involved in the belief that life is worthwhile. But perhaps life experience intrudes here because I came to that conclusion right around the time my sister attempted suicide during a visit. Yeah our life experiences lead to different conclusions about things like this.

So, did you first define God in a way that had meaning to you, and then read the Bible and find that the God you had conceived of was there? Did you consider any other religious texts?

Yes. Among other things I took a class at university on the religions of China and Japan, and it certainly made its impact on me. I have little doubt that the extent to which I could find meaning in various texts is very probably a product of cultural conditioning and language. I am a product of a society founded in Protestant Liberalism, and its values and assumptions are a part of me. But your tactic here is pointless. I am a pluralist. I make no argument that Christianity is the one truth of the universe.

Using my brain to understand reality. Yes, thank you, that's what I mean. Wouldn't you say that includes reason? Do you think it includes anything else? How does one go about using one's brain to understand reality?

My point was that I am entirely unsure that I did anything that is different than anyone else. Yes when I was 12-14 years old I started with a Descarte like rationalistic approach to understanding reality, but frankly such an approach only goes as far as you are unaware of your own assumptions, because logic only goes from premises to conclusions and so if you have any conclusions at all it is because you started with premises, whether you are aware of them or not. So of course quickly I abandoned this self-decieving approach and then proceeded to do what most people do, because they really have no choice, and that is simply make sense of what they could of the world with whatever perceptual process they have. Mine started with more of an embedding in the scientific world view than most.

If you read my intro in the fellowship hall you would find some of the other things that played a role, but I will clarify and expand. After the scientific world view, I would say that exitentialism (especially Albert Camus) played the biggest role, then perhaps a little familiarity with Buddhism, encounters with Mormons, JWs and moonies, then there was that class in the religions of China and Japan, then a survey of the history of philosophy in which I loved Aristotle, hated Plato, loved the Pragmatism of C. S. Peirce, and hated the process philosophy of Whitehead. All this time I was reading the Bible and deciding what I made of it because of encounters with those all around me who had regard for it.

My other question was, is subjective evidence useful in understanding life, the world, the universe, ourselves, religion, God (any or all of the above)?

Good lord! Is it not obvious that my answer is yes? If anything can be called an overall theme of all of my posts it would be this.

So do only "religious nuts" have "spiritual experiences"? Could something be both a spiritual experience and a biological phenomenon? Or are there some spiritual experiences (perhaps those experienced by the religious and sane) that are not also biological (neurological) phenomona?

Everything that is objectively observable is going to have a scientific explanation. Spiritual experiences are not about the things which are objectively observable, however much people may mistake some biological or neurological phenomena for such.

I think the social sciences are also useful disciplines for examining any religion, not only as a participant in it, but from outside of it, in order to understand its nature, origins, evolution, etc.

Sure and if you can come up with anything that is more than ideological speculations I would like to hear it. A scientific theory of the origins of life based on based on genetic and fossil evidence is one thing. A theory based on assumptions without a single shred of hard evidence is something quite different - not a scientific theory at all. Such assumptions is why Einstein stuck that cosmological constant in his gravitational field equations - what he said was the biggest mistake of his life.

Yours is more internally consistent than many, I think because you seem to feel very free to shape your interpretation of the Bible to your idea of what God must be, rather than, like many Christians, thinking it has to be the other way around.

If it is not internally consistent then it is not meaningful.

It seems plausible that other forms of energy may exist that we can't detect, even that some forms of energy may exist that don't obey the laws of physics. Of course if we can't detect them then we don't know that they exist. Or know anything about them at all. It's kind of like the question of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. Of course it might, but since we haven't run into any evidence of it, we can't say anything about what it is or is not like. Saying "I believe there are spiritual forms of energy" is like saying "I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." WHY do you believe that? On what basis?

Its basis is the only thing it can be -- my subjective perceptions of reality. I have stated these several times elsewhere. ..sigh.. OK, I will repeat them here. I perceive in the laws of physics an intentional design of the universe to give birth to the self-organizing process of life in such a way that there is interactions with causes outside the physics worldview. This is a subjective perception. I perceive in the vast diversity and near universality of human belief in a nonphysical aspect to reality, evidence that there is indeed an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality. This is a subjective perception of evidence which is therefore subjective. I percieve in the gestalt of my experiences of life the actions of a person (God) who is not spacially localized that gives substance to my fundamental faith that life is worth living. This is a subjective perception.

[humanguy]

I believe that everything is a form of energy, but that there are physical forms of energy and there are spiritual forms of energy.

And:

These spiritual forms of energy DO interact with physical forms of energy but from outside this web of mathematical relationships. However it is these mathematical relationships binding physical things to physical observers into this single form of the universe that makes it possible to study them with this scientific method of getting objective observations.

As a scientist you must know that "In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law."

Spiritual is defined thusly:
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism :

So it would appear to me that "spiritual energy" is an oxymoron. Can you provide an example of spiritual forms of energy interacting with physical forms of energy?

[mitchellmckain]

As a scientist you must know that "In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law."

Yep that is physical energy all right.

Spiritual is defined thusly:
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism :

So it would appear to me that "spiritual energy" is an oxymoron. Can you provide an example of spiritual forms of energy interacting with physical forms of energy?

Some words are given definition that simply reflects the limits of understanding. A thousand years ago the word science meant little more than study and theology was called the queen of the science. But as our understanding has changed so has the meaning of the word. I believe that we are in the midst of a rapid change in the meaning of the word "life" from what was simply a list of characteristics that we have observed in various forms of what we consider life to something a little different (see the Wikipedia article on life). For a world like spirit where the opinions about it are greatly different the difficulties are greater.

For me the word "spiritual" basically means non-physical and I often use the word non-physical instead, but the fact is that I associate much of what people mean by spiritual to this same aspect of reality. Even within this definition, it is obvious that if you insist strictly on this physical definition of the word energy then yes of-course the term "spiritual energy" would be oxymoron. Therefore what I am obviously saying is that just as physical energy is the ultimate substance of all things physical, there is an ultimate substance of all things of every kind - a "potentiality of being itself" if you like which is similar enough to energy so as to make the usage of this word for it appropriate and then to say that there are physical forms of energy with this quantitative measurable quality and spiritual forms of energy that do not have this quantitative measurable quality.

[Angela]

Saying that "there is something about the experience of life itself that people find meaningful" is like saying "people find true statements in mathematics". But does this mean that mathematics requires no proofs? No. So likewise does your statement fail to establish that faith is not involved in the belief that life is worthwhile. But perhaps life experience intrudes here because I came to that conclusion right around the time my sister attempted suicide during a visit. Yeah our life experiences lead to different conclusions about things like this.

I'm sorry, I don't find your analogy helpful. But anyway I didn't and wouldn't argue that faith is not ever involvedin the belief that life is worthwhile (I am certain that it is), just that it needn't be involved. Faith has nothing to do with my belief that my life is worthwhile, and from my observations I don't think I am unique in this. Really for me I wouldn't describe it as belief exactly. I experience meaning in my life.

Yes, I agree about experiences affecting our beliefs. Interestingly, I too have a sister who has attempted suicide. She's struggled since adolescence with depression and bi-polar type issues, and is doing well at the moment. Thinking of her (funny how the closer things are to you, the more real they seem), I can see where at certain times in peoples' lives (some lives more than others), something you might call faith would be needed to believe that life is meaningful and worth living. For me I think it would be faith in myself, or faith that the future will be better than the present. And for many, it would be their faith in God. I guess the difference in my perspective and yours is that I think what these people are actually having faith in would be the same as me, faith in themselves or in the future; whereas you would say my faith is really in God? In any event, I recognize that it is a decision, a choice to believe, to have faith, not a belief based on reason. Optimism is a kind of faith, I suppose, and I consider myself an optimist. But I don't see that introducing God into the matter illuminates anything.

I am a pluralist. I make no argument that Christianity is the one truth of the universe.


. . . . and then proceeded to do what most people do, because they really have no choice, and that is simply make sense of what they could of the world with whatever perceptual process they have. Mine started with more of an embedding in the scientific world view than most.

If you read my intro in the fellowship hall you would find some of the other things that played a role, but I will clarify and expand. After the scientific world view, I would say that exitentialism (especially Albert Camus) played the biggest role, then perhaps a little familiarity with Buddhism, encounters with Mormons, JWs and moonies, then there was that class in the religions of China and Japan, then a survey of the history of philosophy in which I loved Aristotle, hated Plato, loved the Pragmatism of C. S. Peirce, and hated the process philosophy of Whitehead. All this time I was reading the Bible and deciding what I made of it because of encounters with those all around me who had regard for it.

My other question was, is subjective evidence useful in understanding life, the world, the universe, ourselves, religion, God (any or all of the above)?

Good lord! Is it not obvious that my answer is yes? If anything can be called an overall theme of all of my posts it would be this.

OK, Mitch, I think I am finally starting to "get" you. I did go back and read your thread in the Fellowship Hall. And I wholeheartedly agree with you on some fundamental points. Let's see if I can state what we may agree on. (I do this with hesitation and the expectation that I will get some (a lot?) of things wrong here, but I'm gonna go for it anyway.):

Both of us (and many other people with differing and often contradictory beliefs) are making sense of the world the best we can. Both of us (and all those others too) have probably got some things wrong and some things right. It is possible, even probable, that either or both of us have it all entirely wrong. (Have I gone too far there?) The truth is too big to be contained in any one religion or set of beliefs. And, we both deeply value diversity and difference.

I thought I could get more than that. Oh well. I love your statement from the other thread that "religion is 90% language." I completely agree. I wonder what you say the other 10% is? I would say it is the unknowable and/or the indescribable. Also, I think that religion is only one kind of language through which we can understand the nature of our existence; poetry and story, the arts, and philosophy being others. And I don't think religion is a necessary language. (Of course I would think that wouldn't I?) And since I see religion causing so many problems, I wonder if we would be better off without it.

I think the social sciences are also useful disciplines for examining any religion, not only as a participant in it, but from outside of it, in order to understand its nature, origins, evolution, etc.

Sure and if you can come up with anything that is more than ideological speculations I would like to hear it. A scientific theory of the origins of life based on based on genetic and fossil evidence is one thing. A theory based on assumptions without a single shred of hard evidence is something quite different - not a scientific theory at all. Such assumptions is why Einstein stuck that cosmological constant in his gravitational field equations - what he said was the biggest mistake of his life.

OK, so are you saying anything any of the social sciences have contributed to our understanding of religion(s) amounts to "ideological speculations"?

Yours is more internally consistent than many, I think because you seem to feel very free to shape your interpretation of the Bible to your idea of what God must be, rather than, like many Christians, thinking it has to be the other way around.

If it is not internally consistent then it is not meaningful.

I agree. I do not find your belief system to be internally consistent, though. Just more so that many Christian ones. For example, I do not think you have solved the problem of evil/hell/suffering. Saying that people create hell for themselves doesn't let Father God off the moral hook, I don't think. To illustrate: If as a prospective parent I could somehow know that one of my children would of their own free choosing create for themselves an existence of eternal torture, but all of my other potential children would choose eternal life, I'd choose not to have any children. I think that would be the only moral choice. To bring children into existence knowing this would be selfish in the extreme.

It seems plausible that other forms of energy may exist that we can't detect, even that some forms of energy may exist that don't obey the laws of physics. Of course if we can't detect them then we don't know that they exist. Or know anything about them at all. It's kind of like the question of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. Of course it might, but since we haven't run into any evidence of it, we can't say anything about what it is or is not like. Saying "I believe there are spiritual forms of energy" is like saying "I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." WHY do you believe that? On what basis?

Its basis is the only thing it can be -- my subjective perceptions of reality. I have stated these several times elsewhere. ..sigh.. OK, I will repeat them here.

Thank you, I appreciate your patience and generosity.

I perceive in the laws of physics an intentional design of the universe to give birth to the self-organizing process of life in such a way that there is interactions with causes outside the physics worldview. This is a subjective perception. I perceive in the vast diversity and near universality of human belief in a nonphysical aspect to reality, evidence that there is indeed an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality. This is a subjective perception of evidence which is therefore subjective. I percieve in the gestalt of my experiences of life the actions of a person (God) who is not spacially localized that gives substance to my fundamental faith that life is worth living. This is a subjective perception.

OK, I think I get it. I'm afraid I have to be difficult (as usual) though. How do you "perceive" intentional design? Normally, one cannot perceive either intention or design. We infer intentions from the behavior of others, and we perceive patterns and may infer design. Would it not be more accurate to say that you infer intentional design from your understanding of the laws of physics?

[humanguy]

For me the word "spiritual" basically means non-physical and I often use the word non-physical instead, but the fact is that I associate much of what people mean by spiritual to this same aspect of reality. Even within this definition, it is obvious that if you insist strictly on this physical definition of the word energy then yes of-course the term "spiritual energy" would be oxymoron. Therefore what I am obviously saying is that just as physical energy is the ultimate substance of all things physical, there is an ultimate substance of all things of every kind - a "potentiality of being itself" if you like which is similar enough to energy so as to make the usage of this word for it appropriate and then to say that there are physical forms of energy with this quantitative measurable quality and spiritual forms of energy that do not have this quantitative measurable quality.

But non-physical just basically means something that doesn't exist in the physical realm, no? The idea requires the assumption that there is another realm besides the physical one. Is that like another dimension?

You can't have a non-physical table. You can have the idea of a table, but that's in your mind so it's a concept that is basically made up of electrical activity in your brain, so even an idea could be considered physical. The brain activity that happens when someone imagines a table can be measured, in other words.

Something that is non-physical can't be measured or seen or...you see what I'm getting at. So I guess my question is how did you arrive at this concept of a spiritual, non-physical energy? Is that something that's uniquely yours or is it a concept that is shared by various Christian schools of thought?

[mitchellmckain]

But I don't see that introducing God into the matter illuminates anything.

Ah ha! And there we see the crux of the problem on this issue. Your bad associations. For you the word "faith" is inevitably linked to the religion in which you were raised. There was no religion in which I was raised and my understanding of the word "faith" preceeds my understanding of the word "God" and so the meaning of the word faith in my mind has NOTHING a-priori to do with God. I in fact believe that ALL knowledge is based on faith -- and necessarily so because nearly nothing outside of mathematics can be proven. Therefore, for me to say that the assertion "Life is worth living" is a matter of faith, has nothing to do with God. It is only after that, when I sought a meaning for the word God that I found it in an equivalence between a faith that life is worth living and a faith in God. But oh well, I frankly don't think that is going to make any sense to you because the meanings you have for the words "faith" and "God" just are not reconcilable with mine.

Both of us (and many other people with differing and often contradictory beliefs) are making sense of the world the best we can. Both of us (and all those others too) have probably got some things wrong and some things right. It is possible, even probable, that either or both of us have it all entirely wrong. (Have I gone too far there?) The truth is too big to be contained in any one religion or set of beliefs. And, we both deeply value diversity and difference.

The truth is too big to be contained in one human mind and when we go to a group like a religion then generally the consellation of ideas becomes larger and the consensus grows smaller. So it kind of gets both better and worse simultaneously. Then perhaps when the constellation of ideas grows too large and diverse then along comes a fundamentalist group and cuts it down to the consensus and since that is really smaller than the understanding of a single human mind it seems a lot like a lobotomy to me.

I thought I could get more than that. Oh well. I love your statement from the other thread that "religion is 90% language." I completely agree. I wonder what you say the other 10% is? I would say it is the unknowable and/or the indescribable. Also, I think that religion is only one kind of language through which we can understand the nature of our existence; poetry and story, the arts, and philosophy being others. And I don't think religion is a necessary language. (Of course I would think that wouldn't I?) And since I see religion causing so many problems, I wonder if we would be better off without it.

Oh but religion is unavoidable. The signs of this fact can be seen everywhere around us. The supression of religion, even passively, must eventually result in other activities taking upon all the aspects of religion.

I am a very strong opponent of creationist pseudo-science and I see it as an agressive attack upon science because these people don't want there to be a scientific explanation of the origin of life and the species. Their effort is nothing less than a demand that their theology be called science if it sufficiently disguised in a little rhetoric. Now I love theology, but I also love science. However, because I have studied both I can see quite clearly that the seperation of science from theology is essential. These things are created by such distinctions.

Therefore I think that the inevitable result of the suppression of religion must one way or another be the destruction of science as well. No this is not to say that science depends on relion in any way. Nor will I accept you and fellow atheist as proof that religion can be suppressed. Just because you and others are in reaction against the fallacies of the religion in which you are raised does not prove a thing.

Sure and if you can come up with anything that is more than ideological speculations I would like to hear it. A scientific theory of the origins of life based on based on genetic and fossil evidence is one thing. A theory based on assumptions without a single shred of hard evidence is something quite different - not a scientific theory at all. Such assumptions is why Einstein stuck that cosmological constant in his gravitational field equations - what he said was the biggest mistake of his life.

OK, so are you saying anything any of the social sciences have contributed to our understanding of religion(s) amounts to "ideological speculations"?

Nope. Just reductionist attempts to explain religion away under the assumption that there really is no such things as what religious people believe in. That is most certainly nothing but "ideological speculations".

So be honest now, is your bluster here a recognition that I am quite correct in judging that there is no hard evidence upon which to base such ideological speculations?

I agree. I do not find your belief system to be internally consistent, though.

You are not in a position to judge whether my belief system is internally consistent or not.

I think that what my beliefs are inconsistent with are premises that you operate on that I don't accept.

For example, I do not think you have solved the problem of evil/hell/suffering. Saying that people create hell for themselves doesn't let Father God off the moral hook, I don't think. To illustrate: If as a prospective parent I could somehow know that one of my children would of their own free choosing create for themselves an existence of eternal torture, but all of my other potential children would choose eternal life, I'd choose not to have any children. I think that would be the only moral choice. To bring children into existence knowing this would be selfish in the extreme.

My first response to this failed to notice that you had assumed something that I do not believe in the word "would" as if God already knows our choices before before we make them. Genesis 6:5-6 says quite clearly that if God had known what would happen then he would not have created us any more than you say that you would. I am an open theist and so I reject this idea that God has absolute knowledge of the future - I don't believe that this is a logically consistent definition of omniscience.

But if you meant as I originally understood you to mean, that would do this if you even knew that it was a possibility, then here is my first response in reply to that: That is not an inconsistency. That is your choice. For that is the choice: life with all its lack of control and potential for sorrow OR no life at all. That you would choose no life seems pretty consistent with your other choices (even stereotypical). In fact, frankly, I think you have just identified your own pathology (not to say that I don't have one as well). I find it to be a pretty scary one too. For to me it frankly sounds a great deal like these men that suddenly decide that because things are not going the way that they think things should, their whole family is better off dead. They have a right to make their own choices, and so God gives us that right as well.

OK, I think I get it. I'm afraid I have to be difficult (as usual) though. How do you "perceive" intentional design? Normally, one cannot perceive either intention or design. We infer intentions from the behavior of others, and we perceive patterns and may infer design. Would it not be more accurate to say that you infer intentional design from your understanding of the laws of physics?

No can do Angela. These are subjective perceptions. I know that they will not stand up to objective scrutiny. But that only means that I will not demand that you accept these conclusion. It does not mean that you can demand that I accept your perception of things in their place.

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

But non-physical just basically means something that doesn't exist in the physical realm, no?

No. Jesus was resurrected in a spiritual body. It is not a matter of different realms, it is a matter of relationship. Physical things are a part of the mathematical relationships of physics which are in fact the structure of the single form of energy which they are all a part, and spiritual things are not.

The idea requires the assumption that there is another realm besides the physical one.

Do you require the assumption that there is nothing but physical forms of energy?

There is no objective evidence for spiritual forms of energy because that is impossible. And yet people all over the world believe in a spiritual aspect to reality -- many of them believe so with far more conviction than anything in science. That is not possible for me, but I do see reason to judge that there is a subjective aspect to reality whether there can be any objective evidence for it or not.

You can't have a non-physical table. You can have the idea of a table, but that's in your mind so it's a concept that is basically made up of electrical activity in your brain, so even an idea could be considered physical. The brain activity that happens when someone imagines a table can be measured, in other words.

Ideas are no more non-physical than light. I am a physicalist in regards to the mind-body problem. That means that I beleive that the human mind is just as much a physical entity as the human body.

Is that something that's uniquely yours or is it a concept that is shared by various Christian schools of thought?

It is something that came out of my masters thesis at seminary on the metaphysical implications of contemporary physics. There is no real consensus of Christianity on the topic of metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality) and it has become a difficult topic in academia because a good understanding of modern physics is now essential for any intellegent examination of the topic. These kind of questions are not really what Christianity is about so it isn't a part of Christian dogma. However since the nature of reality is kind of an unavoidable topic most writers will adopt a metaphysical outlook whether implicitly or explicitly. For a lot of Christian history this has tended to an uncritical acceptance of the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. But you will have occasional writers that devise their own, like Alfred North Whitehead. In my commentary on that book of John Polkinghorne you will find a comparison of his metaphysical outlook with mine.