(Missing key to) A Scientific Explanation For God? | (Joe Scott)

Religion and Secularism
1

 

Joe started 2016 with one of the biggest questions of all - does God exist?

I started Joe’s video with a cynicism that evaporated as Joe’s perspective unfolded. His well told story impressed. It helped that his words resonated with my own evolving experience.

Still while listening, at times, an image of playing basketball in zero gravity crept into my imagination because, like so many others, Joe lacked a fundamental frame of reference to stabilize the mind boggling complexities and conflicting notions of our inner and outer worlds that he was doing his best to rationally discuss.

Something so fundamental it’s never thought about, ergo its implications remain lost to us. Namely, recognizing the profound difference between our Human Mindscape (individual and collective) and Physical Reality.

This lack of a clear baseline appreciation for our own brain’s* place in the universe leads to all sorts of hubristic assumptions, and a reflexive disregard for information outside of one’s own realm.

Let me go through that key again quoting from an essay I wrote a couple years ago.

“… missing was a much more fundamental division crying out for recognition. Specifically, the magisteria of Physical Reality vs the magisteria of our Human Mindscape. …”
What’s important about that, is that it forces us to recognize that both science and religion are products of the “realm of Our Mindscape.”
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 and all that we’ve learned through our minds.

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.

What’s the point? Religions, Science, political beliefs, heaven, hell, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.


That’s not to say they are the same thing, they are not!

Though they are both valid/necessary human endeavors,
but they are certainly fundamentally and qualitatively different.

Religion deals with our interiors, inside our minds, hearts, feelings and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that.

*Or more specifically our mind, that thing our brain creates, during its short dance of life.
2

I don’t want to short change Joe, so here’s his story,


"YouTube's Joe Scott.: I'm starting 2016 with one of the biggest questions of all - does God exist?"

Now, before the hate comments roll in, I know that people's religious and spiritual beliefs are a very sensitive topic and I only present this to explain my own beliefs and thoughts on the subject. Take what you like, leave what you don't. But we're all cool here, dig?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3_0O-gpeYo   |  Jan 11, 2016

00:15
J.J. asked: You seem like a really smart guy Joe, so I'm interested in what religious beliefs you have. And if so why, okay?

00:40.   There’s two types of questions that I get asked on here, one is the kind that has an absolute answer you can do a Google search and find it all the facts yourself.  The other type doesn't really have answers out there to be found so the only thing that I can search ismyself.  The first one is much easier, thanks Jonathan.

{Joe’s back story.} …  {The cracks between church “religious” teachings evolve as a young man’s experiences and observations accumulate.} …. {04:00 “feelings can’t be trusted”} …  {“Seeker vs. Agnostic”}

4:20.  “I do care, a lot, enough to be constantly searching for an answer.  But the paradoxabout being a seeker is that as I’m searching for an answer I also think that the answer can't be known.  Which makes me skeptical of anybody who thinks that they do know the answer …”

04:37.  because to me it's not really about God it's about you know just reality I mean what is this thing we live in this sensory space around our bodies and it all makes sense to us we think we've got a good bead on things but when you look to the edges of our collective knowledge you start to see that this whole thing just falls apart we now think …

05:30.  so you can't trust your feelings, and you can't trust your observations, so what can you trust nothing.  Nothing.  Which is exactly what you're supposed to focus on when youmeditate.  Meditation has been used for millennia as a way to transcend the physical space and enter a higher enlightened consciousness.  Every major religion has some form of meditation  …

06:00. (considering “enlightenment moments”)

7:25.  (Orch-OR Orchestrated Objective Reduction)
(connection to outside consciousness - quantum entanglement)
(your brain and consciousness)

9:00.   Emergence:  "A process whereby entities, patterns, and regularities arise through the interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.”

9:50.  “… does our existence serve a higher purpose that we have no way of seeing ourselves.  Emergence says it could, astrophysics says that the atoms in our bodies are the same as the atoms scattered all throughout the universe. …”

10:25  “… none of this really spoke to organized religion.  I think that's really more of asocietal and psychological thing.  And so I didn't really get into that, I just personally think that religions have their good and bad.
A lot of really good things have been done in the name of religion, and yeah a lot of reallyterrible things have been done in the name of religion.
But if it wasn’t religion, I think it would have been something else.
People are looking for a reason to do the things, the justification to do the things, that theywant to do in their own mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3

Religion and science are not products of our “mindscape” any more than the phases of Venus are. Science was not produced by the human mind. All reality is revealed through the minds’ power to reveal the underlying complexity of our universe through science, not from science.

The self-contradictory phrase “scientific explanation for God” sets up a false paradigm that implies the existence of God can be examined in the same way the hunt for extra-solar planets or a new vaccine is conducted.

The human mind does not produce consciousness. It enters into consciousness. Consciousness precedes the human capability to perceive it.

The existence or non-existence of God is impossible to empirically establish. Old ideas and beliefs that are religious do more to confuse, alienate and eventually discourage those who honestly want to consider this vital question. Forget all silly outmoded notions about “God” that are read in the bible or heard in many churches. They are poison to the spirit. Religion has everything to do with man, power and worldly influence and literally nothing to do with God.

4
Science was not produced by the human mind.
How do you figure that? Science is a process, a set of rules for processing what our sense can perceive.
All reality is revealed through the minds’ power to reveal the underlying complexity of our universe through science, not from science.
That's a bit circular. Where does all this processing happen?

Okay, I agree “through” science is probably better than from science, but can you explain the distinction between the two as you see it?

The human mind does not produce consciousness. It enters into consciousness. Consciousness precedes the human capability to perceive it.
I couldn't disagree with that either. But seems to me you are discussing the realm of our "Mindscape" right there. ;-)
The existence or non-existence of God is impossible to empirically establish.
Granted! Nowhere do I (nor do I think does Joe) claims that God can be empirically established. God is a product of our consciousness, can't be measured. On top of that I suggest that a person's relationship with "God" is the most personal relationship they'll ever have, because it exists within each of our unique minds and is founded on our uniques personal experiences and 'spirit'. (Or Mindscape if you will.)
Old ideas and beliefs that are religious do more to confuse, alienate and eventually discourage
True enough, but take a look at our society, religion dictates what a huge percentage of our people think, so ignoring it won't do anyone any good either.
Religion has everything to do with man, power and worldly influence
Seems to me that's about the same thing I suggest, religion is about the human Mindscape, our desires and struggles, etc.
nothing to do with God.
I think you're going a bit too far there, tribal religions invent their God's in the image of their followers. The nastier one's replace "God" with their own Egos. Same as it ever was.
Forget all silly outmoded notions about “God” that are read in the bible or heard in many churches. They are poison to the spirit
What are you suggesting isn't poisonous to the spirt?

Perhaps Paganism, Earth Worship, Sun Worship?

I’d be down with that, because they at least respect the supremacy of Earth’s natural processes - which is what I label Physical Reality. But they are still figments of our mindscape.

Michael thanks for the feedback.

If you’re curious: Confronting Science Contrarians: Missing Key to Stephen Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”

5

CC, you always leave thoughtful and intellectually challenging posts and I suggest we’re more in agreement than not. The most questionable assertion I made in my prior entry is the notion that science isn’t produced by the human mind, and I assumed this point would be challenged in this intellectually rigorous forum.

What is science? Among other things, it’s the organized, systematic and continual effort to gather verifiable data and information about the universe we live in. Every principle, every theory, every discovery that science catalogs comes from something, some set of incomplete ideas that preceded the moment when the human mind slowly or suddenly in some cases as in Newton seeing the apple fall, puts together the disparate parts of a theory or an hypothesis where all the separate details fit into a coherent whole. E=MC2 was valid long before Einstein discovered it. All the rules and principles of mathematics were true well before human reason teased them out of obscurity. Science is a way of thinking about the world we live in because science is impossible without human thought but what is thought? Thought is an adjunct of consciousness and cannot exist independent of consciousness but the belief that consciousness is produced by our minds is (in my opinion and a growing number of neuroscientists) an erroneous assumption. The mind enters consciousness. It doesn’t produce consciousness. All of the organizing principles of science were discovered or you might say “revealed” by our minds. You are correct in saying that all knowledge including science is dependent on the cognitive power of our brains to assimilate and build the impressive edifice of modern science and I am in awe of what science has achieved, but the human mind receives, formulates and understands the universe around it by and through a resonant consciousness that exists and existed well prior to the human minds discovery of those truths science reveals.

“Whatever single thing we learn, whatever single thing we do, we are learning and doing all things, marching in the direction of universal power.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

6
The mind enters consciousness. It doesn’t produce consciousness.
Can you explain that? How is entering consciousness difference from producing consciousness? You scientists recognize this, any references you can share?
but the human mind receives, formulates and understands the universe around it by and through a resonant consciousness that exists and existed well prior to the human minds discovery of those truths science reveals.
"resonant consciousness" inhabits all of creation? Seems to me simply another metaphor to help some grasp the unknown.
7

Well, i’m pretty bummed, another distract, a careless swipe of the pad, (just when I’m thinking this turned into more than I’d expected about this “resonant consciousness” and looking at it from the other direction, … and that I’d better copy and paste into a new document) and poof 45 minutes of good focused writing gone and other things calling me.

“resonant consciousness” inhabits all of creation?
It's like you're still thinking you can cross over into grasping actual Physical Reality. We can't. Nor can science and actually I don't believe "it" ever pretends that "it" can, because scientists expects that there are ever deeper layers complexity beyond our current understanding. Which is why science is about provisional understanding based upon current evidence, knowing that there is always more to sense and learn.

But, I guess one of my points is that individuals haven’t quite grappled with recognizing and enunciating this division so egos get in the way of their work. But, that’s okay science with a skeptical community of experts always looking over your shoulder it creates checks and balances. (We need each other to keep ourselves honest, don’t you know :wink:

 

I believe you just need to chew on this a bit more. cheers, happy 4th, Cc

“… missing was a much more fundamental division crying out for recognition.

Specifically, the magisteria of Physical Reality vs the magisteria of our Human Mindscape. …”

8

This subject of resonant consciousness or universal consciousness is a topic I raised on this forum some 7 months ago and listed 4 or 5 sources. I tried to thoroughly explain this idea of universal mind and in my opinion did so effectively. Mostly, the response I received consisted of asking me to prove my assertion which is tantamount to asking someone to prove that God exists, an impossible task. I just googled “universal consciousness” and got page after page of reference articles on this very old and compelling idea.

The resistance to any degree of acceptance regarding what’s been called “universal consciousness” stems from the fact that if one accepts the notion of “universal mind” the inescapable and overwhelming implication is there must be an emanating source and what other source could it be but some form of supreme being.

I noticed that Richard Dawkins is mentioned or in some way affiliated with CFI. It’s no surprise that a website promoting skeptical views about religion would associate with his beliefs. I bought and read one of his books hoping to find a substantive, empirically grounded piece of evidence to support his atheism but found nothing but the same hackneyed criticism of religion and church abuse and silly biblical fables that theists also condemn and ridicule. People who assert the nonexistence of God never get beyond the flawed idea of thinking because the church is riddled with abuse, propaganda and outmoded orthodoxy, this must mean that the central belief that churches represent must also be fraudulent. Religion is poison to the spirit. Doctrine and orthodoxy are poison to the spirit, as are childish fairy tales from the bible. You ask in an earlier post above “what isn’t poison” to the spirit. The list is too long to enumerate here, but a few would certainly be imagination, science, knowledge, virtue, generosity, etc, etc, etc.

You say I need to “chew on this a bit more” well, seven months ago I (Genus Homo) posted 4 principles at length that I believe support the belief that God is real and none of them have yet to be effectively refuted by any contributor to this forum.

9
empirically grounded piece of evidence to support his atheism
Seems to me that's like trying to find empirical evidence for God, or Love, or Hate. Can't be done. They are different realms beyond what empiricism can compute.
silly biblical fables that theists also condemn and ridicule.
What silly biblical fables do theists also condemn and ridicule?

Then of course, what kind of theists are we discussing, the 40% who adore the trumpkin, or the other 40% who are all over the map?

People who assert the nonexistence of God never get beyond the flawed idea of thinking because the church is riddled with abuse, propaganda and outmoded orthodoxy, this must mean that the central belief that churches represent must also be fraudulent.
I don't think that's at all fair.

I rejected religion and the Lutheran Church long ago, still a teenager, for all those reasons you’ve listed. But that didn’t stop me from struggling with reaching or defining God in and of herself to my own satisfaction. It’s that journey that’s resulted in the types of things I believe and write about now. I believe many, many, many others are also able to separate the concept of God, from petty human religious corporations intend on power over people and money in their pockets.

You say I need to “chew on this a bit more” well, seven months ago I (Genus Homo) posted 4 principles at length
That's a total non sequitur - the one has nothing to do with the other.

That was then, this is now.

Furthermore, I’m capable of restating, repeating what I believe, and defending it afresh, every time anyone does me the courtesy of confronting me with honest challenges about it. Why not you?

Heck you don’t even do the courtesy of sharing the link to that thread. I’m already bootlegging time away from other more pressing chores, I don’t have the time to do a lot of back tracking.

Regarding your complaint about the lack of satisfactory discussion that your previous thread elicited, my short answer (pending more information) is,

Cc @ #331345: It’s like you’re still thinking you can cross over into grasping actual Physical Reality. We can’t.
And if it's the notion of a universal consciousness as sort of a god thing, that again firmly places the entire discuss right back into the realm of our Mindscapes.
10

Cc, Yes you’re right that many are in the process of grappling with their ambiguous beliefs about God and religion. I should’ve prefaced the remark with the adjective “Some people who assert the nonexistence of God”, correction noted.

You say I don’t have the courtesy to offer links that buttress my arguments. I don’t have a clue how to do that. I try to show courtesy to any and every person I interface with so your words are an inaccurate assumption.

You say you don’t have time to reference past entries, You must be a busy man and I don’t blame you for seeing your time as a precious resource. I understand that. I run a service business, I’ve also written 6 books and trying to finish the seventh, with each taking years to write. I need to put 4 hours a day into classical guitar to stay fluent. I’m also an amateur astronomer. My two acres looks overgrown because I’ve simply not had the time to tend to it and I’m a gardener who loves and ordered attractive landscape. I live alone. I have no friends and no relatives to visit or associate with so I fully accept and expect help from no one. I’ve lived this way for decades, so I know all about how precious time is. I am not complaining, just, as some would say “letting you know where I’m coming from”. I love my life and am grateful for it. This is the first time on this forum I’ve spoken about myself and am loathe to speak this way, but I must defend myself as my name attaches to this forum. I can assure you Cc, I am not a complainer and I’m not in the habit of showing a lack of courtesy to others.

Please don’t lump me in with that population of brain dead right wingers who support Trump or any other conservative politician. I vote in every election and have never voted for a republican in my life. (Some) people assume that anyone arguing for the existence of God must be a conservative. I am a far left progressive who’s donated to Earth First. I don’t think you can get much further left than that.

All else aside I know that you and others in this forum are contributing ideas solely intended to improve this country and the world in general. You, Tim B, Mr Lausten and others are carrying the arguments on this forum that need to be heard. I acknowledge your contributions and am grateful to be able to freely express my views on this valuable First Amendment platform of free speech.

11
All else aside I know that you and others in this forum are contributing ideas solely intended to improve this country and the world in general. You, Tim B, Mr Lausten and others are carrying the arguments on this forum that need to be heard. I acknowledge your contributions and am grateful to be able to freely express my views on this valuable First Amendment platform of free speech.
Hey Genus. Nice. I think the world needs to figure out how to agree on some important things without worrying about agreeing on everything.
12
You say I don’t have the courtesy to offer links that buttress my arguments.
Come lets not turn all sensitive
Heck you don’t even do the courtesy of sharing the link to that thread.
That was specifically about one specific thread - now you've chosen twice not to share that one particular link. That's fine if that's how you want to be about it. If you read a bit more magnanimously you'd also notice that between the lines I acknowledged that you showed me the courtesy of serious critique. Take them both how you will. :-)
I have no friends and no relatives to visit or associate with so I fully accept and expect help from no one.
I don't have that dubious luxury, lots of relative and friends in my life, but that's okay, it's nice to be needed, even if it eats up tons of "my" time. Sometimes I wish I did have the hours and hours and hours all to myself - but karma hasn't worked out that way for me, and I'm pretty okay with that. A full heart and being needed is worth something in itself.
This is the first time on this forum I’ve spoken about myself and am loathe to speak this way, but I must defend myself as my name attaches to this forum. I can assure you Cc, I am not a complainer and I’m not in the habit of showing a lack of courtesy to others.
I think it's wonderful that you have been able to open up and share. Please lets not make this about complainers or lack of courtesy or not recognizing courtesy or all that window dressing. You say you've written books, so you must appreciate the process is struggle and you've got to be hard on yourself, and probably allow your editor to be hard with you - tough love and all that stuff.
All else aside I know that you and others in this forum are contributing ideas solely intended to improve this country and the world in general.
Oh yeah we serious liberals and children of the intellectual enlightenment, do dream and wish we could be part of positive constructive change - that's true enough. But, "solely"? Please. What about simply to exercise writing skill, to try to understand ones own questions betters, to try and improve and build on my own ideas, for my own sake also, the joy of finding a rare likeminded person one can relate to, and so on and so forth.

All I was trying to say is that we are having this discussion here and now, and it was started around something I wrote a few days ago. All I was asking was if you could reiterate or restate this thing you believe, in light of my outline.

resonant consciousness or universal consciousness
Then my challenge would be, is this resonant consciousness a resident of our Mindscape - or a resident of Physical Reality?

Further I’d be curious to know if you are getting closer to grasping what that division is all about?

I appreciate what you’ve shared and would like to hear a little more from you, I’m not trying to mess with your head or make you feel bad, but I do love a vigorous dialog and sadly most don’t. Cut me a little slack and I’ll cut you a little slack.

:wink: