Science and Philosophy Club Rules OK!

[mkgs]

I think the issue isn't about whether God exists or not. The issue is whether all scientific evidence can be sidelined because any religious or other non scientific text says so.

I am curious to know exactly what scientific evidence is sidelined because of biblical text. (Note I said biblical text, not religion.)

And although science is not undeniable truth either, it is the honest search for it regardless of any other bias or input. I understand that people may deny the facts which heavily HEAVILY HEAVILY point us in the direction that the universe is billions of years old.

In determining the Age of the Earth, scientists must make assumptions that seem reasonable based on observable data. I understand that you have brought up the age of the Earth because it is important to the theory of evolution (in order for evolution to occur, millions of years are needed).

One of the "scientific methods" that evolutionist use attempt to date the earth is Carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14 dating is based upon the assumption that the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere, strength of the earth's magnetic fields, and consumption are constant. It does not account for inconstancies or changes (which we discussed in my prior post about the second law of thermodynamics). And inconsistencies and changes in these factors are prevalent (e.g.-volcanoes give off lots of CO2 depleted in 14C). Additionally, carbon dating is only goes to 50,000 years old as anything older should theoretically have no detectable 14C due to half-lives.

Evolutionists also try to use other radiometric dating methods to age of the earth. These are techniques that mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. It is mostly used on rocks. (This is what is used to date the earth at billions of years.) It is true that the isotope concentrations in these rocks can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To get dates from isotope concentrations, unprovable assumptions have been made (starting conditions are all the same, decay rates are consistent [this contradict the second law of thermodynamics], and closed systems).

All that being said, how would the age of the Earth discredit creation?

But their belief is lead primarily by faith and not by the unbiased search for what is ACTUALLY going on out there.

I think my above statement covers this.

Your belief in evolution, my friend, is lead primarily by faith and not by the unbiased search for what is ACTUALLY going on out there. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution, not the FACTS of evolution.

To say the bible is correct and all other religions are incorrect (without faith) is misleading and although such a theory may be taught in religious schools, teaching it without context of faith and other religions in a public (I mean it in the US sense) school where other children of other faiths are free to attend and mingle is in my opinion wrong UNLESS its taught as one of many religious ideas of creationism. And I suppose in a country like the USA which was built on the understanding of separation of church and state it seems very wrong.

Mixing theology with science in an attempt at discrediting is foolish. Faith cannot be separated from the bible, just as faith cannot be separate from science (is anything absolute?).

The US was built on faith and God.
Pledge of Allegiance......."ONE NATION UNDER GOD"
Declaration of Independence...."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You have misused the meaning of "separation of church and state" for the context of this debate.

...I personally HAVE to ask people to draw a line between their private beliefs and those that they want to be instilled in the schooling system ESPECIALLY if they expect it to be considered a scientific fact when it simply isn't. God possibly creating the big bang is all well and good but God then trying to trick us by placing evidence which STRONGLY tells us ALL about our past, just to trick some of us, just seems REALLY unfair.

Again, please explain how the THEORY of evolution is scientific fact.

Theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Also, explain how God is tricking us?




We could debate back and forth forever my friend, as life is one big bundle of faith. The real question is not about the beginning, but the end. Are you willing to gamble with your soul's eternity?

 

[redpoppy]

Oh dear!!! I don't want this debate to get nasty but some of your assumptions have made me a little miffed but please bear with me and we shall try and have this debate in a calm and adult fashion. I do find it interesting.

Thanks for responding and I WILL definitely get back to you when I have some time this week (I'm due to start work in ten minutes!) but first quickly: my age of the universe comment is not based on evolution, its based on cosmology. If you study the nature of the universe, light, space, energy etc. THAT is what causes the universe to be billions of years old. I have NEVER looked at the age of the universe as evidence or lack of for any arguments of evolution.

As for "faith" in science; I'm sorry but that's nonsense. I have no loyalty to ANY theory in science and would drop all or any of it at the drop of a hat if a better, well thought out, evidence based argument was presented to me. I don't go around saying "i have faith in evolution" and as you read my earlier post, sometimes, when i see leaf insects I sit and think "come on!!!! REALLY????" so please don't assume things of me.

Lastly, "am I willing to gamble my soul?" is EXACTLY the type of fear mongering that I hate in ALL religions. If God is beautiful and caring and merciful and has given me a brain (all of which I believe) then hopefully he won't hold it against me if I use it with sincerity and with good intention. And THAT'S where the "tricking" comes into play. If I do not have a cultural religious slant and I go out into the world seeking God I can find him anywhere and everywhere and I personally feel I do. But if me using my God given senses and God given brain to search for God and he evades me because its like some lottery where you have to pick the right religion, then I'm not sure that's a merciful and loving God that I believe in. Hence I do not believe in the main religions all claiming that THEIR religion is the only one, the only path, the right way to morality and heaven. I don't mind other people believing that so long as they keep their superiority and fear away from me. I will not be scared into line by tales of a wrathful God or by conditions which require me to become submissive and not ask questions. Knowledge and seeking it are not evil in my opinion.

Okay so now I'm late but I will be back to reply directly to your message.

 

[Pyrrhic]

In regards to the age of the Earth in the bible, we can also look at the writing of Genesis. Genesis, is widely regarded at written by Moses during his 40 years in the desert. (1450 - 1410 B.C.) This society would be semi-nomadic herdsmen, living in what was the bronze age. The type of people who aren't going to be able to have a concept of billions of years.

The concept of counting in 'hundreds' appears in Genesis 6; the concept of 'thousands' does not appear until Genesis 20. So, how would you explain to bronze-age man the concept of 13.7 billion years? Maybe in ages? Or days? For instance, one age, or day covering a long time-span.

In the New Testament, 2 Peter 3:8 says this, "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Just expand that to the whole timescale of the life of the universe, and it's entirely plausible that the universe did take billions of years to make, but that biblical text is also correct.

 

[morri]

lol I had recently a similar topic at a different forum (cricket forum) and there was one reformed christ protestant who tried to tell everybody that everything has been happening as it is written literally in the bible .(meaning that the earth is only 6000 yo etc)
I personally don't think much of that.

maybe though a matter of education and country you come from. I never showed much interest in Religion and read scientific based books (for children) from an early age so I follow what is going on in the science news , I am particularly interested in human developement, and astronomy.

oh btw- When I am dead , I am dead. I neither believe in reincarnation nor in a life after death or anything else along these lines.

 

[Sarahkka]

Hey mkgs, I know this is a matter that is very important to you and that you feel very passionate about it, but I have to agree with redpoppy that your tone is starting to get just a little belligerent. I would love to continue this debate, but not if there is going to be anger or disrespect.
I also agree that the last comment about eternal souls is a perfect example of how fundamentalists turn people right off. If you want to believe in a hellfire and brimstone god, you go for it. But saying something like that to another person is really offside and judgemental.
And by the way, in science, a theory means something different.

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Here is another physical fact that proves the whole planet has been here a lot longer than 6000 years. Glaciers and the polar ice caps. You can see with the naked eye the yearly deposits and evidence of warming and freezing. There's a lot more than 6000 years' worth of data there.

I like rafwife's contribution about the story of genesis actually fitting quite well with the idea of the big bang, as long as the bible is not taken literally. It's astonishing to me to see the profound understanding of science that our early ancestors made with just observation of the world around them. Look at the Mayans and astronomy.

 

[redpoppy]

Dear mkgs. thanks for your above reply. Please bear in mind that I don't mean to harm you or attack your belief system but simply "believe" that humans need to give each other the space they would like themselves in these matters. If we start one upmanship in religions we end up with wars.

I am curious to know exactly what scientific evidence is sidelined because of biblical text. (Note I said biblical text, not religion.)

Well if you take the Bible LITERALLY lots of things. I don't want to sit here and point and jeer and I do not intend to do so by pointing out all the things in the Bible (or ANY religious texts) which are at odds with science or logic. I PERSONALLY think that Jonah in a whale is a MYSTICAL or SPIRITUAL or METAPHORICAL/SYMBOLIC experience. I think most of the stories (in most religions) when thought of in this light are actually very beautiful, powerful and relevant. I actually think (personally) that they are FAR more important and relevant when seen in this light than when seen as actual events which makes them somewhat (in my PERSONAL view) silly and random. I do not think Jonah was swallowed WHOLE by a whale and survived. If someone used UNBIASED thought (I am X who is educated and seeks knowledge and all I request is proof and evidence to support claims, I have no bias towards any culture or religion) then I think that X would not take on a human being swallowed by a whale as a fact without the intervention of FAITH. X need not believe in science or religion or anything. He or she is just a rambling man with no commitments to anything.

As with the age of the universe. If you see that there is order in the universe and world (for me that is what makes me believe in God as with other religiously inclined people I think coincidence, even with those anthropic principles in place, is just not, for me, a viable option) so if you see the order and you realise that science has discovered RULES and LAWS and a mathematical nature to the universe, then if you are religiously inclined, do you think these are essentially the fingerprints of God or do you think they are arbitrary things which actually have no base or reason or worse still things that are put in place to trick humanity by working time and again just as a misdirection, to a much less majestic, much less magnificent and much more humdrum "reality"? Because if you use cosmology to date the age of the universe by using those very laws and by seeing what goes on in teh universe (speed of light being quite important and what the universe is doing now, expanding, at a certain rate, etc.) then its basically impossible for the universe to be a few thousand years old unless it just puffed up in this state out of nowhere.

A 13 billion year old universe is much more magnificent and to me, an indication of divinity, than a few thousand year old one.

And these two things (amongst MANY others) show me, that IF we are religiously inclined, then we MUST broaden our minds and realise there is a SPIRITUAL realm which is not PHYSICAL and when things are described in religious texts and they contradict scientific evidence then maybe in a way we are denying the magnificence of God by limiting our understanding to those cultures of centuries past.

I like rafwife's comments on the progression of mathematics and the concepts understood for a certain time. How would you tell someone from 1000AD for example, about the speed of light?

In determining the Age of the Earth, scientists must make assumptions that seem reasonable based on observable data. I understand that you have brought up the age of the Earth because it is important to the theory of evolution (in order for evolution to occur, millions of years are needed).

As covered by me extensively, this isn't the case. The case FOR evolution is made MUCH stronger BECAUSE there is evidence of the universe being BILLIONS of years old and the earth being ... I don't know how old, but like more than geriatric.

All that being said, how would the age of the Earth discredit creation?

I personally don't think it would. But I do think it would discredit a very closely literal translation of PROBABLY any religious text ever written.

I think my above statement covers this.

No it really doesn't. I'm glad Sarahkka has joined the discussion but it's not just about WHAT a "theory" is but WHERE that theory comes from. What is the BASIS of the theory and what are the principles of the theory? I could come up with a theory which was very specific to my world. It could be ANYTHING from an observation to a prejudice. But what is the BASIS of my theory? What evidence does it have? What tests has it undergone? How biased is it? How have people disagreed with the theory? what evidence have they provided? What are their motivations?

When you see that the VAST majority of scientists in this day and age DO NOT accept literal translations of religious texts, do you think "its a consipracy!" or do you think honestly that its because they are intelligent enough to learn things for themselves and are like you and me and life has taken them to that place?

Your belief in evolution, my friend, is lead primarily by faith and not by the unbiased search for what is ACTUALLY going on out there. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution, not the FACTS of evolution.

No it REALLY isn't "faith" unless you mean faith in the facts and evidence that point to that theory. Reading a text and following your heart and soul and emotion is faith. Reading a text and questioning its validity, learning counter arguments, considering all global input of opinion, knowledge and specialised understanding, looking openly at the OTHER options available and what the validity of those are is actually using your BRAIN and MENTAL capacity and cognitive skills to come to a conclusion for yourself. It's not the same as faith. I, as I have said previously, sometimes wonder at the theory of evolution, but then I think, well what alternatives are there. And I'm afraid there aren't any which are viable enough for MY understanding when I look at things in an open and honest way with the BEST and most honest intentions. (Except the leaf insects which are OBVIOUSLY aliens or placed here SPECIFICALLY by God as a little joke ) There is no point when looking into Evolution do I hear a counter argument and say "well no!!! that goes against Charles Darwin and hence it's SACRILIGIOUS!!! I can't accept it or hear it as it would mean Charles Darwin was lying!!!!" I don't give a t*ss about Darwin quite frankly.

Mixing theology with science in an attempt at discrediting is foolish. Faith cannot be separated from the bible, just as faith cannot be separate from science (is anything absolute?).

I'm sorry but that's just not true. You analyse the word theory yet leave out all the context of the theory and now you bandy about the word faith without analysing it at ALL.

The US was built on faith and God.
Pledge of Allegiance......."ONE NATION UNDER GOD"
Declaration of Independence...."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You have misused the meaning of "separation of church and state" for the context of this debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Under God was not the original pledge. And the term "their" God, in my opinion, says a LOT! I actually didn't know that's what it said and have a new found love and respect for the founding fathers in choosing those specific words. I understand the influence of religion in the USA and I also understand that, I living in the UK live in what is primarily a Christian country. That doesn't bother me AT ALL. But the idea that ANY services provided to a diverse people by the government (education or any other service) has religious indoctrination instilled in it is just utterly wrong. Whatever that religion is in whatever country.

Again, please explain how the THEORY of evolution is scientific fact.

Theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Not only has sarahkka responded to this quite well BUT when teaching science I would appreciate VALID and respected and tested scientific theories to be taught. Ones which have lots of scientific evidence FOR them and ALSO have it explained to children that should we find the bones of humans which date back to dinosaur times then those theories will cease to exist, but that its VERY unlikely due to the MASSES of genetic information available and ongoing study and unbiased SCIENTIFIC research.

Also, explain how God is tricking us?

If you take away your "faith" for an experimental period (which I doubt you can do actually) and look at things outside of your viewpoint you may understand what I mean. If God did make the universe then he made th rules that it abides by and these rules all point towards things which the LITERAL translation of the Bible will not confirm. And if God wrote the Bible (through divine inspiration or whatever) and he also made the universe and its laws, and he also made the human mind to be the way it was, they SOMEWHERE you either have to say, well thats NOT FAIR!!!! Or you choose where you stand.

I think the story of the garden of eden and the tree (of knowledge or not) is BEAUTIFUL. I LOVE it!!!! To me it indicates the sanctioning of free will by God. To others it indicates the eternal sin we all are born into. I suppose MY instinct is to try and do RIGHT. To attempt to NOT hurt people and to make choices which are better. I'm not great at it but neither is anyone. So maybe I'm not one of those people who NEEDS to feel sinful, who needs to be taught how to live so that I care for others. I believe most humans are the same if you allow them to be and if they are not harmed or ill. Maybe I'm wrong?

We could debate back and forth forever my friend, as life is one big bundle of faith. The real question is not about the beginning, but the end. Are you willing to gamble with your soul's eternity?

Here is where I have to border onto the nastier side of debate as I think the above is really very rude.
The above is the part of your post that does 2 things.
1. It is offensive. It would not be an issue for me if you thought this and kept it to yourself, but the fact you try and bring FEAR into a discussion where it is out of place is in my opinion in very, very bad taste. I personally am not bothered by it as its one of the age old tools of religious indoctrination but the thought of people (younger people) reading it and feeling GUILT, or anguish or self loathing for trying to search for the truth in a free minded honest way upsets me very much.
2. It shows your own bias and fear. It says "I won't be going on an honest search for the scientific truth because I fear if I do so I will find things which threaten my belief and hence my eternal soul and I'm simply not willing to take that gamble."

And lastly, what makes the Bible superior to any other religious text? What if you're on the wrong bandwagon? No one of the major religions who has the type of faith you do will ever know as fear will keep them locked into the one they have.

End (lame ass) note: I was in Thailand last year and visited a Buddhist temple. I am embarrassed to admit that my OH and I were being quite childish in the temple of the reclining Golden Buddha all very quietly. Then I saw an old Thai lady in prayer and I almost wept. I thought of all the people all over the world born into all types of religions in prayer. And when they put their hands together (or however they pray) and ask God for something they're directing their hopes and dreams and burdens in the same direction, to the same belief and in the hope that the ULTIMATE powerful being, the creator of all that is, the bringer of heaven or nirvana, will help them. They have lives, they are individuals, they are HUMAN beings who turn to any faith through circumstance and chance and it makes NO sense to me that a God, would reject either their prayer, or their goodness, based on the circumstance they were brought into this world in. So I wont fear God, I have faith God will find me as I search for him.

 

[Pyrrhic]

I am really against people using guilt trips like 'you're going to hell' as an argument when talking religion. To me, it's the quickest way to turn someone away from your point of view. People should extol the virtues of their beliefs, not say well if you don't believe me bad things will happen to you.


So keeping that in mind, when OH and I were disagreeing about this earlier I told him that I didn't care what he had to say as he was going to hell anyway


(I am being very tongue in cheek here, we were ripping the piss out of each other )

 

[redpoppy]

So keeping that in mind, when OH and I were disagreeing about this earlier I told him that I didn't care what he had to say as he was going to hell anyway

We do that too. But it's hilarious when done in a comedic fashion.

I'd be very interested to know what your OH's opinion was on this. Is he a hardcore science Atheist?

 

[cillybean83]

my brain hurts now lol

 

[PeanutBean]

I often hear about how 50% of the US population (as shown in polls I suppose) think creationism is fact and Sarah Palin said she thought it and evolution should both be taught in school.

Wow! This is quite the statement. You have managed to improperly use the term evolution and imply that creationism is mearly a figment of US religion. Fact is, it takes the same amount of faith, if not more, to believe in evolution, as it does to believe in creationism......

My word, the lady doth protest too much! I think you'll find that my statement (not moomin-troll's) does not improperly use any terms, given that there are no definitions, perhaps I improperly used the word population in your eyes too? Nor did I imply anything about US religion. This is merely a statement I have heard based on opinion polls from the US and has no value judgement at all. I don't know what proportion of the population of the UK, or any other country, believes in literal creationism. This is just something I have heard.

It doesn't make sense to teach creationism in school science lessons as it is not a scientific theory though there is a place for allsorts of discussion about it as a theological theory in religious studies, philosophy, sociology, etc.

I have never said I am an atheist and that there is no God, in fact if you actually read my posts you'll see I have said I'm quite spiritual but don't believe in organized religion, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't lump me in with a group to which I do not belong.

Get YOUR facts right next time.

redpoppy - I agree with you about the Dawkins lot. They are easily as extreme as any of the more extreme ends of religion. They certainly do not represent the ethos of science which is to be open minded.

And you guys with your physics, I'm envious! lol I'm really not very hot with physics; biology and organic chemistry are more my forte.

freckleonear - the problem with teaching intelligent design in science is that there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

The US was built on faith and God.

Are you willing to gamble with your soul's eternity?

It's interesting. The UK was also built on faith and God, ever since the Roman's invaded us, and then we had a King who 'divinely' decided that as he wanted to marry another woman he'd invent a new church to release the Catholic church's power over him. Then a few hundred years later a bunch of new-Church people popped over the pond and took the states for their own. I don't feel too proud of our part in that history, how do you feel?

Your last statement is frankly ridiculous and purposely provoking. I specifically stated in the first post that this thread wasn't about making people feel small so why are you trying to do so with your scare tactics? I was interested in hearing about people's views on scientific issues, not a huge angry debate on creationism v's evolution. There have been other contributors from both sides of that particular discussion and all have managed to do so without upsetting 'the other side' and without trying to condemn them.

Thanks to Sarahkka and redpoppy for their assistance. I confess I'm knackered after driving round the NW for hours today and DH has an interview tomorrow and I think my old dog is dying before my eyes so I'm not much up for the research and debate of the scientific evidence. I'm very pleased you are all doing it for me! And thanks rafwife too, you are lovely!

 

[cillybean83]

as a person who believes in creationism and that the Bible is the literal Word of God, I feel sad that this thread has gotten kind of mean. I agree that telling someone "believe the way I do or you're going to hell" is definately not the way of going about things, even if you really truly believe it.

God is love, and he loves each and every one of us, and he did give us wonderful minds to think and consider things, and to come to our own understanding of the world around us. I would never be so mean as to tell someone they were on their way to hell if they didn't believe like me, but I do love to share my beliefs with others because I think it's wonderful that God has provided a way for us to spend eternity in a place as perfect and wonderful as heaven and I just want to share that with everyone! No one has to agree, but I still like to share it, just in case.

I don't know a lot about science so I can't debate evolution with anyone, I just know that I have faith in God and in His Word, and that has always been enough to give me inner peace.

 

[Pyrrhic]

So keeping that in mind, when OH and I were disagreeing about this earlier I told him that I didn't care what he had to say as he was going to hell anyway

We do that too. But it's hilarious when done in a comedic fashion.

I'd be very interested to know what your OH's opinion was on this. Is he a hardcore science Atheist?

I'll get him to post.

He's not a hardcore atheist, but he is one of these people who hedges his bets that there may be a God, or some sort of higher power. I tell him that cheating He believes in evolution mostly, but doesn't think it has to preclude religion.

 

[mkgs]

I will sign off, as my intentions were never to be mean, insulting, protesting, or anything else. I apologize if my words were ever perceived in such a fashion. Best wishes to all and I encourage you to continue in the search for knowledge.

 

[morri]

Something that i think is interesting is how Atheist have a hard time in the US. Over here I feel that everybody keeps their way of life private and nobody gives much a shit about what you believe and what you don't. t seems to be a big deal in the US though particularly the southern states to know that your opposite has this and that religion and have a problem if he does not .

 

[PeanutBean]

Something that i think is interesting is how Atheist have a hard time in the US. Over here I feel that everybody keeps their way of life private and nobody gives much a shit about what you believe and what you don't. t seems to be a big deal in the US though particularly the southern states to know that your opposite has this and that religion and have a problem if he does not .

Yes that is interesting. In the UK we don't tend to shout about it either. We get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at the door and I think it's fair to say that it's a population wide general consensus that this is extremely annoying and we don't like to have others' religion forced down our throats whatever we do or don't believe in.

mkgs - you don't need to leave, just lighten up a bit.

Anyway, any more science opinions?

 

[redpoppy]

Yes that is interesting. In the UK we don't tend to shout about it either. We get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at the door and I think it's fair to say that it's a population wide general consensus that this is extremely annoying and we don't like to have others' religion forced down our throats whatever we do or don't believe in.

mkgs - you don't need to leave, just lighten up a bit.

Anyway, any more science opinions?

My dad used to invite the Jehovah's witnesses in and debate with them! They used to think they'd found a convert and then they'd leave a little shook up, clutching their little leaflets.

That actually makes my dad sound way cooler than he actually was/is.

Yeah mkgs, you don't need to leave, I think people, including me, just wanted you to realise that some things are not acceptable by whatthey imply for others. Also, after the LONGEST post EVAR I would quite like a response. I didn't get too bolshy I hope and we can continue in a calm adult fashion.

Science opinion:
Mystical/spiritual experiences, which are random and most times VERY personal cannot be scientifically measured, tested or researched.

Probably.

Discuss.

 

[PeanutBean]

My dad used to invite the Jehovah's witnesses in and debate with them! They used to think they'd found a convert and then they'd leave a little shook up, clutching their little leaflets.

My Dad does too! Try to convert them to his way instead I think. lol

Science opinion:
Mystical/spiritual experiences, which are random and most times VERY personal cannot be scientifically measured, tested or researched.

Probably.

Discuss.

What kind of experiences did you have in mind? Do you mean ghosts, out of body experiences, that sort of thing?

I'm always surprised by just how much of things can be measured. Even as a practising scientist doing complicated genetics simple things like knowing the wave lengths of light eyes can see (I do understand how this can be done through study of the protein conformations) seem like amazing things to be able to find out. So much can be studied about the brain through scans and comparisons with known brain activity. But then much of these techniques presumably are unlikely to be possible at the exact moment of the experience. I think I sit on the fence! I think science CAN tell us an awful lot more than most people would think about the brain (surely the root of all things experiential) however I also think there is much undiscovered and whether that will turn out to be a new branch of science or something far more spiritual we may never know!

I feel that when it comes to science in the public there is both too much faith that science is concrete and not open to discussion or change as well as too little faith in issues where science HAS shown what is happening but people simply don't want to believe it (e.g. climate change, MMR vaccine).

 

[redpoppy]

I suppose I mean you can't measure things on a spiritual plane and if you attempted to show brain activity you could easily mark someone off as mad or having coincidental experiences.

Now please bear with me as I'm sure most of you don't believe in this stuff and I think that's fine and dandy.
Experiences of people I know and trust IMPLICITLY:
- Dreams which foretell events. NOT ALL dreams and not so much so that people can change the course of their lives to any great degree. Also some dreams are just random dreams but others seem not to be. And the dreams are not great life changing lottery number revealing things, they're just a few random insights into things.
- "hallucinations" which have deep spiritual impact for the hallucinator and experienced without the use of any mind altering substances. Random timings and not a regular occurrence.

Experiences of people I know but for some reason don't trust implicitly even though they are really nice people:
- Seeing ghosts.

Now the first two, I believe they are experiencing these things and when I'm open minded and listen I don't think they sound nuts or that the dreams they tell me about and their following experiences are coincidental. But they are personal experiences and I don't think they would ever stand to rigorous testing. A sceptic will say things are tricks f the eyes, an imbalance of chemistry or a coincidental similarity between life and dreams which people have applied meaning to. I don't think you can measure these things and I think if we stay closed to such experiences because everything we experience must be logical and measurable then we are actually actively closing off experiences which humanity is supposed to have.

As for the ghosts. If someone I implicitly trusted told me they saw a ghost I would trust them. Implicitly. But no one of that calibre has ever told me so as of yet. I'm open to the possibility and I have definitely felt "remnants" or a "vibe" and would even go so far as suggest a "presence" in my own experience but as time goes further away from that moment I feel it was a trick of the mind.

I'm not a particularly gullible person and used to be FAR more sceptical than I am. But after seeing or hearing about so many coincidences, some people start to think, hold on, maybe there is more to life than what I assume and what is physical and then they turn into a dirty hippy and start believing in everything: this is what's happening to me.

 

[Pyrrhic]

Honestly, I subscribe to Occam's razor - that the simplest answer is probably true. 99% of things like ghosts, or out of body experiences can be explained in a much simpler way that a higher power, or something supernatural.

However, I do believe that ghosts do exist, just that most things we hear of are not supernatural.

For instance if your lights flickered on and off and you had a creepy feeling in your house. Is it a ghost? No, it's probably faulty wiring causing the lights to flicker, and a leak of EMF from those wires causing you to feel paranoia - a proved scientific fact.

 

[cillybean83]

Something that i think is interesting is how Atheist have a hard time in the US. Over here I feel that everybody keeps their way of life private and nobody gives much a shit about what you believe and what you don't. t seems to be a big deal in the US though particularly the southern states to know that your opposite has this and that religion and have a problem if he does not .

I don't know if that's entirely true. I live in Tennessee and I'm a baptist and my husband is jewish. We respect each others beliefs. He isn't offended by the fact that I want a Christmas tree in the house and I'm not offended by the mennorah on the coffee table.