I was not able to create a topic in the one on one section. If a Mod could help me out, that would be great, but if not then hopefully this works.
This is for kayky and myself as described in the title, please no interruptions. If you are reading this debate and have helpful info or insights specific to a point, feel free to pm me. (I will let kayky voice whether she wants the same)
So, addressing kayky now:
Would you mind starting with an overview of your beliefs?
For kayky and SlowRoll only, please.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
I'd like to ask you to expound on that. Why does there have to be?I believe there has to be something more than "natural forces" going on here.
Agreed.I believe in the findings of science. I think it is an amazing tool.
I have heard many people say this, and it doesn't resonate with me. Not saying that it's wrong, I just don't understand what is meant by that. As a source of understanding, yes, I would say that there are . . . "shortcuts" to understanding certain things, that aren't scientific. I don't think that means though that those things are outside of the realm of science. Now I may be starting to sound like a "Scientism. . .ist"? "Adherent to Scientism", I guess would be the way to say it. I'm not. At least I don't think I am, haha!But I don't see it as the only source of understanding.
This is where I think we can get into "trouble". How many times has this been proved false in the past? Actually I take that back. I don't mean that I think everything will eventually be figured out. That might only be because things are always changing though.There are certain questions that science seems unlikely to ever be able to answer. So then, are these questions to simply be ignored?
And no, I don't think these questions should be ignored, not completely. Though I think it's best not to jump to an explanation just so you can have one. It is hard to do this I know, but I feel that it's important. The tendency to find some answer to a specific question, even if the evidence for it is shaky, is not the only alternative to ignoring a complex question. I think people often exclude the third option of withholding judgement until the matter is clearer.
Some may object that you can't always do that. That you have to make some decisions even if you don't have a plethora of evidence to go on. I think these are rarer than they are portraying, and most of the kind of questions we have been discussing don't fall in to that category.(IMO)
I agree, a very fascinating mystery, but one is in danger of an argument from ignorance fallacy if they try to say that means there must be "something else".At some point in the history of the universe, dead matter came to life. I find this a great mystery.
Same answer as above.That this life eventually evolved to human consciousness seems against all odds. Why is there such a wide gap in intelligence between us and our closest primate kin?
Maybe. Maybe it's a product of the brain, maybe there is something larger. What I have a hard time with is the way some people say they know that is the case. They may have an experience or something that they feel is evidence of a "higher power" for lack of a better term. It doesn't even have to be a personal "higher power", just something. . . "else"What about religious experience? Is it simply a product of the brain, or is there really something larger than ourselves that can be accessed?
I have no problem with this. What I have seen many times though, is for people to have (to me at least) a strange resistance to a natural explanation for it.
Why? I truly don't understand this mentality. I realize that people vary widely in personalities, but this one stumps me. Is it that they feel that diminishes the experience? Does it feel like condescension? Why is it not okay?
In a search for the most accurate picture of reality, I feel this kind of thinking is only a roadblock. Now I know that some will say that ruling out, a priori, any supernatural explanations is a roadblock. Once again, I think there is a far-too-often-ruled-out, third choice. This is where I'd like to see more discussion. It always seems that by the time anyone gets to a point in the conversation where this middle ground might be discussed, someone is either "offended" (or offensive) too defensive for rational discussion, or everyone is just burnt out. Just when it's gettin' to the good part, (to me anyway).
That's the discussion I want to have. And it may not end with anyone "winning" *GASP*!!! But I think everyone wins when both "sides" come out understanding the other a little better. Or even learning something new. (Kumbaya singing will commence shortly).
Post #12
Before I respond directly to your post, I'd like you to read this article from the Horizon Research Center and tell me what you think of it.
Are Religious Experiences Real?
Â
For many who have had a near death experiences (NDE), the experience has had a profoundly religious effect on them, changed their outlook and led them to live more altruistic, less materialistic lives. Perhaps, in order to understand NDEs better, we need to understand religious experiences better. Many people have in fact likened NDEs to religious experiences.
Although the scientific study of religious experience is still in its infancy, there has certainly been some progress in this area in the last 30 years. Dr Andrew Newberg, a radiology professor and neurological imaging specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, is a leading figure in the study of the brain biology (neurobiology) of religious experiences. He has used high-tech imaging techniques to observe changes in brain function that occur during meditation and deep prayer. It is thought that his work may ultimately help to show how our minds move beyond the self and open to the divine.
In his book Why God Won't Go Away and numerous scientific publications Newberg has described the results of experiments that he and others have carried out. These have demonstrated that prayerful meditation is correlated with a quieting of activity and reduction in blood flow in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area that lies towards the middle of the brain and is normally responsible for providing us with our sense of orientation. This may indicate how the person meditating is experiencing oneness with the 'sacred' and a loss of boundaries of the self. Studies have also demonstrated that the frontal and temporal areas of the brain become active during meditation.
At the same time various chemical changes have been shown to take place in the blood. There is an increase in melatonin and serotonin levels and a reduction in cortisol (a steroid hormone) and epinephrine levels. This makes sense, as the former two hormones are involved in relaxation, whereas the latter two are increased during physical stress.
During an interview with a magazine, Professor Newberg was asked whether the experiences of people meditating were externally real or not. He explained that scientifically proving the religious reality of his studies might not be possible:
'While I think we have provided the most comprehensive neurological model of meditation and prayer to date, I can't prove or disprove that when somebody connects with God, he or she has actually connected. My publisher originally wanted me to call this a "real" experience - which we have no way of proving. Eventually, we compromised with the term "neurologically real" and we are in fact seeing something that is real from that perspective.'
Ultimately, from a scientific point of view, all that we experience, including religious experiences and NDEs, are mediated by the brain. Undoubtedly we will one day discover the molecular mediators of religious experiences and NDEs and also the exact areas of the brain that mediate them, but this will only tell us what parts of the brain are involved in the experiences, not whether the experiences are real.
Our brain and our senses limit our ability to determine what is truly real. Therefore until the correct experiments can be done, we may have to move away from thinking about whether NDEs are real or not. We do not have the physical senses to determine whether there is an external reality beyond what we can perceive and we have not yet developed the scientific instruments that will allow us to determine this .
Are Religious Experiences Real?
Â
For many who have had a near death experiences (NDE), the experience has had a profoundly religious effect on them, changed their outlook and led them to live more altruistic, less materialistic lives. Perhaps, in order to understand NDEs better, we need to understand religious experiences better. Many people have in fact likened NDEs to religious experiences.
Although the scientific study of religious experience is still in its infancy, there has certainly been some progress in this area in the last 30 years. Dr Andrew Newberg, a radiology professor and neurological imaging specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, is a leading figure in the study of the brain biology (neurobiology) of religious experiences. He has used high-tech imaging techniques to observe changes in brain function that occur during meditation and deep prayer. It is thought that his work may ultimately help to show how our minds move beyond the self and open to the divine.
In his book Why God Won't Go Away and numerous scientific publications Newberg has described the results of experiments that he and others have carried out. These have demonstrated that prayerful meditation is correlated with a quieting of activity and reduction in blood flow in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area that lies towards the middle of the brain and is normally responsible for providing us with our sense of orientation. This may indicate how the person meditating is experiencing oneness with the 'sacred' and a loss of boundaries of the self. Studies have also demonstrated that the frontal and temporal areas of the brain become active during meditation.
At the same time various chemical changes have been shown to take place in the blood. There is an increase in melatonin and serotonin levels and a reduction in cortisol (a steroid hormone) and epinephrine levels. This makes sense, as the former two hormones are involved in relaxation, whereas the latter two are increased during physical stress.
During an interview with a magazine, Professor Newberg was asked whether the experiences of people meditating were externally real or not. He explained that scientifically proving the religious reality of his studies might not be possible:
'While I think we have provided the most comprehensive neurological model of meditation and prayer to date, I can't prove or disprove that when somebody connects with God, he or she has actually connected. My publisher originally wanted me to call this a "real" experience - which we have no way of proving. Eventually, we compromised with the term "neurologically real" and we are in fact seeing something that is real from that perspective.'
Ultimately, from a scientific point of view, all that we experience, including religious experiences and NDEs, are mediated by the brain. Undoubtedly we will one day discover the molecular mediators of religious experiences and NDEs and also the exact areas of the brain that mediate them, but this will only tell us what parts of the brain are involved in the experiences, not whether the experiences are real.
Our brain and our senses limit our ability to determine what is truly real. Therefore until the correct experiments can be done, we may have to move away from thinking about whether NDEs are real or not. We do not have the physical senses to determine whether there is an external reality beyond what we can perceive and we have not yet developed the scientific instruments that will allow us to determine this .
Words are alive. Cut them and they bleed. --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Post #13
That was an interesting article. It doesn't seem to me that there can be any conclusions drawn besides: very interesting experiences can happen to humans. Don't get me wrong, they are very cool, and potentially beneficial, but why call it something other than that? I think some people turn this into a case of semantics. If you probe deep into what they mean, it turns out you're talking about the same thing! A lot of time and coherence is lost because of the metaphysical language. It just has a lot of baggage with it so why cloud things with terminology that brings to mind so many cases of mistaken attribution?
I don't know if I can say you personally are doing this. We'd have to talk more.
I don't know if I can say you personally are doing this. We'd have to talk more.
Post #14
Also, just a quick question:
Are you familiar with/have heard of Emergence?
Just curious, it is something I want to learn more about as it seems to have some possible answers to some of the more mind boggling wonders of nature.
Are you familiar with/have heard of Emergence?
Just curious, it is something I want to learn more about as it seems to have some possible answers to some of the more mind boggling wonders of nature.
Post #15
I think it is important not to assume too many attributes to what is experienced even if you choose to use the word God. I have found religion (if not taken too literally) to be an effective vehicle to this experience, and it can be transformative.
I'm going to attempt to respond to your previous post as I said I would.
No, I'm not familiar with the concept of emergence.
I'm going to attempt to respond to your previous post as I said I would.
No, I'm not familiar with the concept of emergence.
Words are alive. Cut them and they bleed. --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Post #16
Kayky: I believe there has to be something more than "natural forces" going on here.
It must have taken a great deal of energy to heat up that singularity to the point of exploding into the universe. Overlooking the source of the singularity itself, what was the source of that energy? I'm no science whiz, but my understanding is that at the moment of the Big Bang there was mainly just the elements of hydrogen and helium--not the elements necessary for life. These elements would have had to combine in precise ways to form the stars that could under even more precise circumstances create the elements necessary for life. Jumping ahead (way ahead) we have a planet (perhaps more than one) that has just the right conditions for this life to emerge. As miraculous as that first single cell is, if we jump ahead again, we eventually achieve human consciousness, an intelligence not only capable of observing the universe that gave rise to it but to unlock many of its mysteries as well.SlowRoll:
I'd like to ask you to expound on that. Why does there have to be?
When I consider all the factors that would have to come together in such an exact way just for me to be sitting here having this conversation with you, it just seems to me there has to be some kind of intelligence behind it.
I combine this line of reasoning with my own experience of something "other" that not only radiates perfect love and connectedness but that spontaneously heals the broken places in my psyche.
I don't have anthropomorphic concepts of a god, but I believe I have experienced God.
Kayky: But I don't see it as the only source of understanding.
As amazing as science is, it cannot provide meaning or value. If these concepts are irrelevant to an understanding of the universe and our place in it, why do we seek them so passionately?I have heard many people say this, and it doesn't resonate with me. Not saying that it's wrong, I just don't understand what is meant by that. As a source of understanding, yes, I would say that there are . . . "shortcuts" to understanding certain things, that aren't scientific. I don't think that means though that those things are outside of the realm of science. Now I may be starting to sound like a "Scientism. . .ist"? "Adherent to Scientism", I guess would be the way to say it. I'm not. At least I don't think I am, haha!
Kayky: There are certain questions that science seems unlikely to ever be able to answer. So then, are these questions to simply be ignored?
I'm not sure we're talking about the same questions. Science has the potential to explain how everything in the universe works and describe the processes that made it that way. But it cannot explain why any of it happened at all.SlowRoll:
This is where I think we can get into "trouble". How many times has this been proved false in the past? Actually I take that back. I don't mean that I think everything will eventually be figured out. That might only be because things are always changing though.
And no, I don't think these questions should be ignored, not completely. Though I think it's best not to jump to an explanation just so you can have one. It is hard to do this I know, but I feel that it's important. The tendency to find some answer to a specific question, even if the evidence for it is shaky, is not the only alternative to ignoring a complex question. I think people often exclude the third option of withholding judgement until the matter is clearer.
I won't think of you as a victim of scientism if you won't think I'm simply settling for the "god of the gaps."
The questions may be fewer, but--man--are they profound and more important to many people than understanding why the sky is blue (not to trivialize science in any way.)Some may object that you can't always do that. That you have to make some decisions even if you don't have a plethora of evidence to go on. I think these are rarer than they are portraying, and most of the kind of questions we have been discussing don't fall in to that category.(IMO)
Kayky: At some point in the history of the universe, dead matter came to life. I find this a great mystery.
SlowRoll:
I agree, a very fascinating mystery, but one is in danger of an argument from ignorance fallacy if they try to say that means there must be "something else".
Kayky: That this life eventually evolved to human consciousness seems against all odds. Why is there such a wide gap in intelligence between us and our closest primate kin?
I think as human beings we all try to make sense of our observation and experience of the world. You can probably tell from my signature that I am a fan of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was a great believer in the importance of human intuition and our ability to sense the sacred in everything around us. That is how I experience the world.SlowRoll:
Same answer as above.
Kayky: That about religious experience? Is it simply a product of the brain, or is there really something larger than ourselves that can be accessed?
The other option, I think, is to believe that I have the power to access my brain in such a way that it spontaneously corrects misconceptions about myself that have produced psychic pain in my life. I have trouble accessing my brain sometimes to remember where I left my keys.Maybe. Maybe it's a product of the brain, maybe there is something larger. What I have a hard time with is the way some people say they know that is the case. They may have an experience or something that they feel is evidence of a "higher power" for lack of a better term. It doesn't even have to be a personal "higher power", just something. . . "else"
I have no problem with this. What I have seen many times though, is for people to have (to me at least) a strange resistance to a natural explanation for it.
Why? I truly don't understand this mentality. I realize that people vary widely in personalities, but this one stumps me. Is it that they feel that diminishes the experience? Does it feel like condescension? Why is it not okay?
I'm enjoying it so far. I have taught high school for the past 32 years. I think you'll find I'm pretty thick-skinned!In a search for the most accurate picture of reality, I feel this kind of thinking is only a roadblock. Now I know that some will say that ruling out, a priori, any supernatural explanations is a roadblock. Once again, I think there is a far-too-often-ruled-out, third choice. This is where I'd like to see more discussion. It always seems that by the time anyone gets to a point in the conversation where this middle ground might be discussed, someone is either "offended" (or offensive) too defensive for rational discussion, or everyone is just burnt out. Just when it's gettin' to the good part, (to me anyway).
That's the discussion I want to have. And it may not end with anyone "winning" *GASP*!!! But I think everyone wins when both "sides" come out understanding the other a little better. Or even learning something new. (Kumbaya singing will commence shortly).
Words are alive. Cut them and they bleed. --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Post #17
Okay, you said you don't believe in an anthropomorphic god, but you have experienced God.
What do you mean by that?
Do you think of God as some sort of entity? Or is it more of a description of a transcendent experience? Or I could just let you tell me.
Also, can I ask, what sort of experience have you had?
What do you mean by that?
Do you think of God as some sort of entity? Or is it more of a description of a transcendent experience? Or I could just let you tell me.
Also, can I ask, what sort of experience have you had?
Post #18
I don't know who or what God is. I consider myself a panentheist because it is an explanation of God that makes the most sense to me and most alines with my own experience. Basically, according to panentheism, the universe is God coming into physical form while at the same time remaining transcendent to the universe. It is the immanence of God in the natural world that can be experienced by us.
I would describe the "God experience" as a fading of the boundaries of the ego and becoming filled and surrounded by a sense of perfect love and connectedness. That is why the only attributes I assign to God are love and union with all that is. But I can't help but think there is an intelligence behind it.
I would describe the "God experience" as a fading of the boundaries of the ego and becoming filled and surrounded by a sense of perfect love and connectedness. That is why the only attributes I assign to God are love and union with all that is. But I can't help but think there is an intelligence behind it.
Words are alive. Cut them and they bleed. --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world is on the same intellectual level as seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus. --Terry Eagleton
Post #19
Well, it looks like we have a very small area of discussion here. That's not a bad thing. I guess my first question would be: Why do you think there is an intelligence behind it?
What specifically about your experience tells you it involves another intelligent agent?
What specifically about your experience tells you it involves another intelligent agent?
