Yes there is 2 ways of thinking. Objective and Subjective.
[quote=“write4u, post:21, topic:10483”]
- Subjectivity is self-centered and based on speculations, sentiments, and experiences.
Uncontrolled hallucinations.
- Objectivity is outward-focused and based on observable facts and data that can be proven true.
Controlled hallucinations.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying, if you sit there an analyze the sunset, you will miss out on it’s awesome beauty. If you sit there and Einstein it, you miss it.
Screaming it doesn’t change it. It just triggers different neurochemistry in other people’s brains.
I’m in the Queenstown Event Center because there was a bomb threat this morning. Not sure when I’ll be going home
I don’t think so. We evolved in this universe, so everything about us has to have sense of it. I don’t see how anything could survive if it went against the laws of nature. However, that doesn’t mean that we naturally know how to express those laws with precision. Nature is consistent (despite some things we can’t quite figure at very large and very small scales, as well as chaos theory). So Kant’s Pure Reason is possible. We observed sets of things and then developed numbers. Eventually we figured out the Big Bang, but long before that, we had a sense of oneness with everything.
So, to me, religion is all the flawed attempts at finding that harmony. Unfortunately, it’s easy to exploit the feelings that come with revelations of connections of us to trees, or tribes to tribes, or dependence on water. Fortunately, enough of us are suspicious when someone claims to hear a voice from the stars. But then, that skepticism can be misapplied to a scientific discovery that we are star stuff.
I see the same limits of being human happening in a myriad of combinations.
Philosophy is like being in a room without light,
and look for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a room without light,
and look for a black cat that is not there.
Religion is like being in a room without light,
and look for a black cat that is not there,
and say we found it.
Science is like being in a room without light,
and search for a black cat using a flashlight.
Can you see God and still be an atheist. In the short video, he uses the words “spiritual experience”. Of course everyone can have the same experience as someone who thinks they saw God. You’re an atheist if you don’t believe it was God.
Yes, when you are schizophrenic.
I’m starting to just feel bad for you.
He clearly define an EXPERIENCE. Not an interpretation. An experience that is not describable in material terms. The knowledge that there is math that COULD describe it is irrelevant. And because of chaos theory and the incompleteness theorem, there are events in nature that can’t be described in a formula.
Haven’t you ever lost yourself in a moment? Something so joyous or overwhelmingly beautiful that you can’t feel your feet on the ground or feel the boundaries of your senses?
[quote=“lausten, post:30, topic:10483, full:true”]
I’m starting to just feel bad for you.
Why?
He clearly define an EXPERIENCE. Not an interpretation. An experience that is not describable in material terms. The knowledge that there is math that COULD describe it is irrelevant. And because of chaos theory and the incompleteness theorem, there are events in nature that can’t be described in a formula.
So that is evidence of God?
Ok, change that to uncontrolled hallucination.
Haven’t you ever lost yourself in a moment? Something so joyous or overwhelmingly beautiful that you can’t feel your feet on the ground or feel the boundaries of your senses?
Yes, and it did not take an apparition or divine experience. All confirming my sober atheist observation of nature, its infinite variety of patterns and the stoic acceptance of the incompeteness theorem, that in no way suggests an "Intelligent Design.
Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy that flourished in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. The Stoics believed that the practice of virtue is enough to achieve eudaimonia: a well-lived, flourishing life. Wikipedia
Who said it was evidence of God?
Why?
Who suggested that?
Is that your comment? Do you have something to say about how emotions are part of science?
I am awed by science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson wanted to have his brain scanned while he talked about the origins of the cosmos and compare it to brain scans of someone in deep prayer to their belief system. He thinks the scans would look similar. I wish he would do that.
This is not a quote of the above, but a good discussion of the similarities of the ways of thinking
Billions of people… 
But you’re only talking to me. This is the feeling bad for you part. It’s hard to track where you are.
The video, and me, both specifically said the experience is not evidence of god. That is the entire point I’m making
You took all the words I was going to post, Lausten. lol Two minds thinking alike.
I’ve been mentioning neurology and neuroscience and write4you keeps blowing the comments off. I feel much the same way Neil deGrasse Tyson says he feels when it comes to the cosmos and nature. There is evidence for this neuroscience of external stimuli, such as a birth of a child, triggering neurochemicals in the brain that cause feeling of awe and wonder, even a oneness with the universe. Yet, write4u calls it an “uncontrolled hallucination”, which it is not. It’s all part of the human condition and write4u can’t fathom any of the science. Maybe it’s because it’s a swing course in the beginning graduate courses and not something write4u has ever studied.
I posted the functioning link.
You’re welcome.
I would think you could guess at my answer.
Emotions are part of humans!
Emotions are not part of “science”.
I read another example of the errors we fall into when we don’t have a clear understanding, evolved to appreciation, for the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.
Are science and religion simply belief systems of a different flavor?
Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.
Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.
The scientific process is basically a set of rules for gathering and assessing our observations in an honest, open and disciplined manner - that all who understand science can participate in and trust because it is a community of skeptical experts who are always looking over each others shoulders.
Science is predicated on the notion of observation and fidelity to honesty and that truth matters !
Religion is predicated on human fears, wants and needs.
What’s the point?
Religions, Science, political beliefs, heaven, hell, art, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down. All are valid human endeavors, but fundamentally, qualitatively different.
Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls, Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to quarantine ego and bias from its deliberations.
Physical Reality is the physical world of atoms, molecules, universal laws of physics and Earth’s laws of nature. It is Earth’s dance between geology and biology and time and Earth’s evolving creatures.
Human Mindscape is all that goes on inside of our thoughts & feelings. The landscape of your musings and desires and impulses and those various voices and personalities who inhabit our mind. The ineffable ideas, that our hands can turn into physical creations, that changed our planet.
Bonus challenge: How does an assumption of God, transubstantiate into a Being of God?
Why people do science might be a better question to tackle.
What’s wrong with science. Psychology and neuropsychology might be a soft sciences, but they still ask why and how any species have the emotions that they have. It studies why people gravitate to religions even.
Then why the opposition to my observations? If a person has a hallucinatory experience why do billions of people attribute that to communicating with God.
Here comes an atheist, he has a hallucination and he thinks it might be God?
He is no atheist. An atheist would not associate the concept of god with any natural event. In an atheist dictionary the word God does not exist as a thing but as a belief system.
But if you can’t explain it, why should the alternative be God? That is a contradiction in terms.
That would be better wording, I was a little lazy there. I usually mean “the set of scientific methods”, but in this case, I was referring to the things that science has revealed, the body of knowledge that has been cataloged over the last 500 years or so.
Either way, people do science out of a desire know how the universe works. A major leap in scientific methods was made in geology, before it was called the “science” of geology, by a guy who wanted to prove how his Christian God created the world. His methods were precise and he found explanations for so much that he eventually quit talking about God. My point is, the motivation is the desire to know. A Christian from hundreds of years of go would want to “know God”. In our multicultural world there are wide varities of ways of saying that, like “uncovering the mysteries” or something. Underneath the language, it’s the same desire to survive by knowing how things work and where we fit in.
