The future
#91
KD, I'll reiterate my statement from earlier, if you want to get into the philosophy of language, that's for a different thread. I believe in your right to think what you like but I also believe in my right to expect some fundamental basis for anyone's belief.
Science does one thing and one thing at its core, it seeks the truth, good or bad, better or worse. There is no question of "should I" but rather, "can I. Science believes in evidence, reproducible evidence. Faith and belief don't , can't change facts. On the other hand, if you're a rational being, facts should be able to change your beliefs.
Neil Degrasse Tyson commented about religion and science and said that over time we are learning more and more. At the same time, more and more of what was at the core of religious belief is being shown to be false. With each new discovery, supported by scientific evidence, religion is forced further and further into an ever shrinking box. These days, talk of the multiverse is used by people of religion to say that is where god is and that science has merely invented a name for that which it cannot explain. The reality is that physics is what forces scientists towards the multiverse. Science, period.
I have always been of the mind that the principle reason for religion is the primal fear of ones own mortality. We as a species have a very hard time accepting that we exist in a very short time. So we clutch to an absurd notion of immortality (whether it be heaven, reincarnation or what have you) as a way to keep the fear at bay. It worked for thousands of years. Fortunately, with the dawn of the Age of Reason and the Scientific Revolution, these notions fell under greater scrutiny. Here we are in the 21st century and many of the pillars of support for religious belief are crumbling all around us. We are witnessing the dying throes of religion. Like a wounded animal, religions are lashing out trying to silence disbelievers because, with each passing day, their fundamentals grow weaker and weaker.
It's curious that as a species, it has been shown that we have a very limited ability to conceptualize great periods of time. We can handle a life span, maybe a hundred years, perhaps a bit longer. However, as a whole, human beings have no capability to conceptualize a hundred thousand years, a million years let along 4.54 billion years. So, it should come as no surprise that theories like evolution are so hard to grasp. You'll hear people ask where the first homosapien was born to neanderthal parents. This is a non question. Evolution occurs over such a long and protracted period of time that the change is like (simplistically put) staring at the hour hand trying to observe its change. We as a species, in the history of our planet are better fit to observe the second hand (and that's an understatement).
The bottom line in all of my posts here on this thread is that we need to have an objective place from which to start in our attempts to explain what is observed. To me, science is the place where we get rid of all our biases and embark on a journey to establish, for once and for all, truth. It's a truth based on facts, facts that can be scrutinized and tested. The real beauty of science is that with every step we take, with every discovery a scientist makes, it only serves to set us off in a great quest for answers. Each great discovery has caused us to not only ask more questions but questions we may never even considered. To me, that's a lot more exciting and fulfilling than any static belief system.
One last thing before I finish. I would like to address the question of the meaning of life without the belief in a higher spirit. To me, if you are a person who believes in an afterlife as a reward for adhering to a particular set of rules in order to gain entry, you are not a moral person. You are a person merely gaming the system for your perceived advantage. For me, and many other atheists, agnostics, skeptics, ect., I believe in life, my life, here, now, as it exists. I live my life to the fullest I can while being, at all times, aware that this is the only life I get to live. There's no retake, no do over. So I have to live to be the absolute best person I am capable of and in the end have only myself to answer to. Let me tell you, right now, I'm a lot harder on myself than any god floating in space could ever be.
Science does one thing and one thing at its core, it seeks the truth, good or bad, better or worse. There is no question of "should I" but rather, "can I. Science believes in evidence, reproducible evidence. Faith and belief don't , can't change facts. On the other hand, if you're a rational being, facts should be able to change your beliefs.
Neil Degrasse Tyson commented about religion and science and said that over time we are learning more and more. At the same time, more and more of what was at the core of religious belief is being shown to be false. With each new discovery, supported by scientific evidence, religion is forced further and further into an ever shrinking box. These days, talk of the multiverse is used by people of religion to say that is where god is and that science has merely invented a name for that which it cannot explain. The reality is that physics is what forces scientists towards the multiverse. Science, period.
I have always been of the mind that the principle reason for religion is the primal fear of ones own mortality. We as a species have a very hard time accepting that we exist in a very short time. So we clutch to an absurd notion of immortality (whether it be heaven, reincarnation or what have you) as a way to keep the fear at bay. It worked for thousands of years. Fortunately, with the dawn of the Age of Reason and the Scientific Revolution, these notions fell under greater scrutiny. Here we are in the 21st century and many of the pillars of support for religious belief are crumbling all around us. We are witnessing the dying throes of religion. Like a wounded animal, religions are lashing out trying to silence disbelievers because, with each passing day, their fundamentals grow weaker and weaker.
It's curious that as a species, it has been shown that we have a very limited ability to conceptualize great periods of time. We can handle a life span, maybe a hundred years, perhaps a bit longer. However, as a whole, human beings have no capability to conceptualize a hundred thousand years, a million years let along 4.54 billion years. So, it should come as no surprise that theories like evolution are so hard to grasp. You'll hear people ask where the first homosapien was born to neanderthal parents. This is a non question. Evolution occurs over such a long and protracted period of time that the change is like (simplistically put) staring at the hour hand trying to observe its change. We as a species, in the history of our planet are better fit to observe the second hand (and that's an understatement).
The bottom line in all of my posts here on this thread is that we need to have an objective place from which to start in our attempts to explain what is observed. To me, science is the place where we get rid of all our biases and embark on a journey to establish, for once and for all, truth. It's a truth based on facts, facts that can be scrutinized and tested. The real beauty of science is that with every step we take, with every discovery a scientist makes, it only serves to set us off in a great quest for answers. Each great discovery has caused us to not only ask more questions but questions we may never even considered. To me, that's a lot more exciting and fulfilling than any static belief system.
One last thing before I finish. I would like to address the question of the meaning of life without the belief in a higher spirit. To me, if you are a person who believes in an afterlife as a reward for adhering to a particular set of rules in order to gain entry, you are not a moral person. You are a person merely gaming the system for your perceived advantage. For me, and many other atheists, agnostics, skeptics, ect., I believe in life, my life, here, now, as it exists. I live my life to the fullest I can while being, at all times, aware that this is the only life I get to live. There's no retake, no do over. So I have to live to be the absolute best person I am capable of and in the end have only myself to answer to. Let me tell you, right now, I'm a lot harder on myself than any god floating in space could ever be.
#92
You may also like these ...................
#93
The thing about this discussion that I don't care for is the insistence that your way is the right way Paul and any other thought from that is wrong. I deal with scientific facts every single day so I understand the significance of reason. I found your sentence 'On the other hand, if you're a rational being, facts should be able to change your beliefs' highly offensive as I have never once asked you to change your beliefs, they are personal to you. When you say that 'science is the place where we get rid of all our biases and embark on a journey to establish, for once and for all, truth', are you saying that you'll put aside your bias that 'believer's' are non-reasoning, potentially depressive, thick-skulled individuals? I would hope so because this conversation seems pretty one-sided to me.
We have a saying where I work which is 'data doesn't lie'. For the past seven or so years I, along with 3 of my colleagues, have collected real life data to create algorithms so we are able to predict the depth of penetration and size of a corrosive defects in buried pipelines. It's a lot of data. Many hours of painstakingly measuring defects in steel pipe that have either been milled or produced by bacteria somewhere in the good ol US of A. So I understand the concept of data, reasoning, studies and rationale. I'd be curious to find out how many individuals took part in this study of the frontal lobes and if the scientists thought to explore the brains of other groups of individuals who were non-religious/spiritual but engaged in other relaxing pursuits that would give one the same 'feeling'. Meditation doesn't necessarily have to be religious.
As far as Neil Degrasse Tyson is concerned.. he wouldn't even commit to the word 'atheist' when asked to describe his thoughts on God, spirituality or a higher power. He merely said that he 'didn't care' and 'I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care.' Sounds somewhat familiar
As I have stated before, I have never bought into the 'one story fits all' belief system of religion. I'd like to think each of us can grow spiritually in our own unique way and whether we choose to flock with others of like mindedness, then so be it. It doesn't make me any less of a person because I believe in an afterlife (whatever that may be). I'll tell you this though.. I do not believe in an afterlife as a reward for adhering to a particular set of rules in order to gain entry. I believe in an afterlife because of my own personal experiences with life and death, that's all. And you're right Paul, there is no do-over. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
.. and try and not be so hard on yourself, eh? We need you around here.. -who else would we debate with and try to annoy?
We have a saying where I work which is 'data doesn't lie'. For the past seven or so years I, along with 3 of my colleagues, have collected real life data to create algorithms so we are able to predict the depth of penetration and size of a corrosive defects in buried pipelines. It's a lot of data. Many hours of painstakingly measuring defects in steel pipe that have either been milled or produced by bacteria somewhere in the good ol US of A. So I understand the concept of data, reasoning, studies and rationale. I'd be curious to find out how many individuals took part in this study of the frontal lobes and if the scientists thought to explore the brains of other groups of individuals who were non-religious/spiritual but engaged in other relaxing pursuits that would give one the same 'feeling'. Meditation doesn't necessarily have to be religious.
As far as Neil Degrasse Tyson is concerned.. he wouldn't even commit to the word 'atheist' when asked to describe his thoughts on God, spirituality or a higher power. He merely said that he 'didn't care' and 'I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care.' Sounds somewhat familiar
As I have stated before, I have never bought into the 'one story fits all' belief system of religion. I'd like to think each of us can grow spiritually in our own unique way and whether we choose to flock with others of like mindedness, then so be it. It doesn't make me any less of a person because I believe in an afterlife (whatever that may be). I'll tell you this though.. I do not believe in an afterlife as a reward for adhering to a particular set of rules in order to gain entry. I believe in an afterlife because of my own personal experiences with life and death, that's all. And you're right Paul, there is no do-over. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
.. and try and not be so hard on yourself, eh? We need you around here.. -who else would we debate with and try to annoy?
#94
[/QUOTE]I deal with scientific facts every single day so I understand the significance of reason. I found your sentence 'On the other hand, if you're a rational being, facts should be able to change your beliefs' highly offensive as I have never once asked you to change your beliefs, they are personal to you. [/QUOTE]
But if you believe in a flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth and are presented with evidence to the contrary, what does that say of your beliefs if you are unwilling to change? You see, this is the beauty of science. If, over time, evidence mounts to support a competing idea science doesn't hold it's hands over its ears and refuse to change. It has too.
Changing, modifying and adopting fresh perspectives in the face of new evidence is what a rational person does. It's the cornerstone of intellect. Clinging to a belief system that cannot plausibly be supported by scientific evidence, is something else, entirely.
[/QUOTE]When you say that 'science is the place where we get rid of all our biases and embark on a journey to establish, for once and for all, truth', are you saying that you'll put aside your bias that 'believer's' are non-reasoning, potentially depressive, thick-skulled individuals? I would hope so because this conversation seems pretty one-sided to me.[/QUOTE]
When someone can provide a plausible scientific explanation for your beliefs or anyone else's beliefs, I'm more than willing to listen.
[/QUOTE]We have a saying where I work which is 'data doesn't lie'. For the past seven or so years I, along with 3 of my colleagues, have collected real life data to create algorithms so we are able to predict the depth of penetration and size of a corrosive defects in buried pipelines. It's a lot of data. Many hours of painstakingly measuring defects in steel pipe that have either been milled or produced by bacteria somewhere in the good ol US of A. So I understand the concept of data, reasoning, studies and rationale. [/QUOTE]
Frankly, I can't understand why a person such as yourself who, on a daily basis, relies on science and mathematics for checking and rechecking data to insure that the right decisions are made, has such a difficult time with what I've been saying?
[/QUOTE]I'd be curious to find out how many individuals took part in this study of the frontal lobes and if the scientists thought to explore the brains of other groups of individuals who were non-religious/spiritual but engaged in other relaxing pursuits that would give one the same 'feeling'. Meditation doesn't necessarily have to be religious.[/QUOTE]
First, I agree in action and words with your assertion about meditation. I have employed breathing exercises I learned from Swami Vivekananda for over 35 years to help me meditate. It is a method for relaxation and helps to reduce stress.
As far as how many people were used in the various tests that were mentioned in the two articles I posted, there are links to the actual studies that would provide greater detail for those that were really interested in following up on the studies.
Finally, I don't know how you would actually know if the spirituality you experience in those moments of "feeling" are the same as those found in the subjects in the one test. The scientists were using monks and nuns to establish a base line. Through brain scans of these subjects they were able to locate specific portions of the frontal lobe that were excited during meditation and prayer. I think the main reason monks and nuns were used was because (and this is where my Carnegie Hall comment came in) through repetition, these subjects were able to, on a far more regular basis, reach a level of transcendence that most people would accept as spiritual. (Again, we have to put aside matters of the philosophy of language for a moment.)
Perhaps if you volunteer yourself for a similar test you can explore the possibility that your "feelings" are the same or similar to those found in the original subjects, or they may be something completely different. The key would be that you would have to be able to reach that transcendent moment at will. I don't think you've mentioned how frequently or how easily you achieve these feelings. If they are random, testing becomes all the more difficult.
[/QUOTE]As far as Neil Degrasse Tyson is concerned.. he wouldn't even commit to the word 'atheist' when asked to describe his thoughts on God, spirituality or a higher power. He merely said that he 'didn't care' and 'I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care.' Sounds somewhat familiar [/QUOTE]
You know a study was released a couple of years ago that showed atheists to be one of the most distrusted groups of people in America.
In Atheists We Distrust - Scientific American
I think the study showed that atheists are on a par with rapists as far as trustworthiness is concerned. Given that kind of prejudice, is it a wonder anyone denies being a non believer. There's one representative in Congress, out of 535 who openly acknowledges his disbelief in god. In reality, there are certainly many more. Statistically, there has to be more. A Pew study found that somewhere around 16% of all Americans are non believers. Granted that includes all variations from atheists to agnostics to the lazy. Nevertheless, it points to a statistical fact that there has to be many more elected officials who don't believe in a god. They just know, if they spoke the truth, they wouldn't get elected. Is it really that surprising that Tyson dodged the question?
Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
[/QUOTE]As I have stated before, I have never bought into the 'one story fits all' belief system of religion. I'd like to think each of us can grow spiritually in our own unique way and whether we choose to flock with others of like mindedness, then so be it. It doesn't make me any less of a person because I believe in an afterlife (whatever that may be). I'll tell you this though.. I do not believe in an afterlife as a reward for adhering to a particular set of rules in order to gain entry. I believe in an afterlife because of my own personal experiences with life and death, that's all. And you're right Paul, there is no do-over. Life is not a dress rehearsal.[/QUOTE]
KD in the first paragraph of my length post you took issue with, I said "I believe in your right to think what you like but I also believe in my right to expect some fundamental basis for anyone's belief." You can believe in anything you want. Believe the earth is flat, unicorns exist, that the flying spaghetti monster will save us all. Believe whatever you like. But, if you're going to post on a public forum about your spiritual feelings, ect. I'm going to ask where the plausible science is to support your assertions. Where are the scientific tests and evidence that serve as support for your feelings. If you have them, I'm onboard with you and want to learn as much as I can from you. However, if your basis is formed on anecdotal experiences then I am sorry but you have nothing for me.
Last edited by Paul Grant; 09-14-2014 at 05:43 PM.
#95
I read a couple of good articles about the future yesterday and thought I'd post links to them.
The first was in the New Statesman and it addresses the new Luddite movement that seems to be growing in technology.
New Statesman | The new Luddites: why former digital prophets are turning against tech
The other article from The Chronicle of Higher Education may be of particular interest to Senormac. He made mention of a possible future like what's depicted in the movie "The Terminator." Well, this article might just keep you up at night if you read it. I think I said, in one of my posts that The Singularity" is both thrilling and chilling. Well, after reading this, my feelings were reconfirmed.
Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
The first was in the New Statesman and it addresses the new Luddite movement that seems to be growing in technology.
New Statesman | The new Luddites: why former digital prophets are turning against tech
The other article from The Chronicle of Higher Education may be of particular interest to Senormac. He made mention of a possible future like what's depicted in the movie "The Terminator." Well, this article might just keep you up at night if you read it. I think I said, in one of my posts that The Singularity" is both thrilling and chilling. Well, after reading this, my feelings were reconfirmed.
Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
#96
I read a couple of good articles about the future yesterday and thought I'd post links to them.
The first was in the New Statesman and it addresses the new Luddite movement that seems to be growing in technology.
New Statesman | The new Luddites: why former digital prophets are turning against tech
The other article from The Chronicle of Higher Education may be of particular interest to Senormac. He made mention of a possible future like what's depicted in the movie "The Terminator." Well, this article might just keep you up at night if you read it. I think I said, in one of my posts that The Singularity" is both thrilling and chilling. Well, after reading this, my feelings were reconfirmed.
Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
The first was in the New Statesman and it addresses the new Luddite movement that seems to be growing in technology.
New Statesman | The new Luddites: why former digital prophets are turning against tech
The other article from The Chronicle of Higher Education may be of particular interest to Senormac. He made mention of a possible future like what's depicted in the movie "The Terminator." Well, this article might just keep you up at night if you read it. I think I said, in one of my posts that The Singularity" is both thrilling and chilling. Well, after reading this, my feelings were reconfirmed.
Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
The article in the NS is almost as predicted. When it applied to the blue collar workers no-one showed concerns ........... that was progession and automation but now when it applies to making the white collar workers redundant everyone sits up and takes notice. I believe I mentioned the luddite scenario and it appears I'm not the only forecaster on the block. However, luddites or not, they will not stop the march of progress and the automation of many jobs in the future.
Regarding the other artical in the Chronical Review on artificial intelligence, we have already passed the brink (or even the precipice) IMO and your mentioning earlier the concept of singularity brings home the imminence and the future for many. One can run but never hide from the inevitability and as developed nations we should be preparing the young and addressing these matters now and preparing them for a different kind of future and far more radical than has ever been considered before. Those nations who ignore the signs will be left behind in the commercial wilderness and become additional third world whilst the existing third world drops further down the scale and pecking order. Tradition is history IMO from hereon out. Sounds all a bit like armageddon but in truth it will be but completely without any hierarchical emotions. It'll be like 'sitting on the dock of the bay' for some of us with all the time in the world to waste.
#97
Revelation
Here's a plausible explanation for the latest scientific brain scan study:
Revelation 22:4:
'And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.'
Hm.. where are the frontal lobes located?
AMEN
#98
"But, if you're going to post on a public forum about your spiritual feelings, ect. I'm going to ask where the plausible science is to support your assertions. Where are the scientific tests and evidence that serve as support for your feelings. If you have them, I'm onboard with you and want to learn as much as I can from you. However, if your basis is formed on anecdotal experiences then I am sorry but you have nothing for me."
#99
This is one of the best threads I've ever read or been involved in. We are getting to see the flipside of the dime here as well. My brain cells are aching so much so I need to realign my three cells of grey matter to build up for the next round as it's so fascinating. It's a pity there aren't more participants on both sides but religion, spirituality and politics are oft the subjects of a 'no go area' for many. Pity
#100
And, I'll just cut and paste from my post above:
"But, if you're going to post on a public forum about your spiritual feelings, ect. I'm going to ask where the plausible science is to support your assertions. Where are the scientific tests and evidence that serve as support for your feelings. If you have them, I'm onboard with you and want to learn as much as I can from you. However, if your basis is formed on anecdotal experiences then I am sorry but you have nothing for me."
"But, if you're going to post on a public forum about your spiritual feelings, ect. I'm going to ask where the plausible science is to support your assertions. Where are the scientific tests and evidence that serve as support for your feelings. If you have them, I'm onboard with you and want to learn as much as I can from you. However, if your basis is formed on anecdotal experiences then I am sorry but you have nothing for me."
Many scientists are divided on the subject. - I probably could do a poll where I work and we'd be divided 50/50. Many of us have the attitude that if we can't disprove it then we won't rule it out. I know a lot of us have experienced mystical moments in our lifetime and we weren't smoking crack. Just because I'm a scientist doesn't mean that I can't imagine the possibility of knowledge being created by something larger than all of us alongside the process of evolution. I'd be interested in studying this further, yes. But for the time being (until I am otherwise proven absolutely incorrect) I am happy to coexist with my spiritual side and trust the intuitiveness and consciousness that it provides me. No one can take spirituality away from another. As I said before, to me, it comes from within those that experience it and shows itself in many different forms. I don't know if it will ever be defined.
I have enjoyed this conversation - very much so. Thank you.
Last edited by KernowDiscovery; 09-15-2014 at 03:59 PM.