Theists and atheists( P.S.)

[kowalskil]

Theists and Atheists (P.S.)

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

[austintorn@aol.com]

God has been vanishing ever since science has been flourishing, which is a pretty good trick for an invisible Being anyway.

It is not that all the believers will give up on their indoctrination or on the emotions of their felt sensations, but that they will mostly all die off and be replaced with newer generations without that wrong thinking.

[kowalskil]

God has been vanishing ever since science has been flourishing, which is a pretty good trick for an invisible Being anyway.

It is not that all the believers will give up on their indoctrination or on the emotions of their felt sensations, but that they will mostly all die off and be replaced with newer generations without that wrong thinking.

Not for everyone on this planet.

Ludwik
.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Provocateur...

From your own paper: "Scientists also disagree with each other, but they have established a method for dealing with controversies. What prevents theologists from following their example?"

The 'onus' is on the theologists...

I'd say 'They' should develop a 'theological method', to avoid scientific confrontation__otherwise, they be fair game to ridicule, as spiritualisms against science__only negates the planet's necessary intelligence potential__as such immature arguments serve no purpose, but emotional and intellectual backwardness...

If spiritists/theologists can not develop a method to avoid scientific confrontation__they should be outlawed__completely(my axiom...)

The way it looks to me, religions of all types are going to necessitate being outlawed, or the world is going to tear itself apart...

Survival is at stake__Shall it be religion or science...? I'll take science, thank-you__though I'm not a-theist enough to think science knows everything, as it certainly does not__It just has the methods to handle everything, one way or another__Preferably by some form of civily elected majority law__Always...

[kowalskil]

From your own paper: "Scientists also disagree with each other, but they have established a method for dealing with controversies. What prevents theologists from following their example?"

The 'onus' is on the theologists ...

Yes, indeed, theologists should develop a methodology of validation of spiritual claims, just like scientists developed a methodology for material claims. But first theologians and scientists should agree that two different methodology of validation are needed. Reversing the order would create monumental obstacles.

Two different words and two different methodologies of validation. Will such agreement be reached before the end of this century? I hope so.

Ludwik
.
.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yes, indeed, theologists should develop a methodology of validation of spiritual claims, just like scientists developed a methodology for material claims. But first theologians and scientists should agree that two different methodology of validation are needed.

But, here you assume that a-theist and atheist scientists should agree that two different methodologies of 'validation' are needed__when in fact, many a-theists and atheists already 'know' there is no possible 'validation' of spiritual claims__and herein lies the problem__The spiritists/theists can't understand the 'onus of separation' is on them__whereby religious and spiritual views__lacking methods, foundations and validations should be kept to the privacy of the minds thinking these ideas, until they do have the 'methedology of separation' worked out__as integration is impossible, and is why America's founding fathers created the 1st amm. to our constitution__Freedom of speech, yet 'separation of church and state...' Science negates spiritualism, and spiritualism negates science__any time anyone tries to super-position them__and logically, this can not be avoided__It's simply the old 'One and The Many' problem__Breadth negates depth, and depth negates breadth__and you ain't gonna get around that, except with science's more advanced logic states of 'Absolute Abduction Hypotheses'__or the 'Unification Without Negation Inductions...'

Reversing the order would create monumental obstacles.

That is just your opinion... Reversing the order would create monumental unifications' possibilities__as it would simply mean the spiritists/theists would have to learn the scientific methods, actions and experimental proofs of science, and in doing so, all may just learn the '1st law of conservation' may be logically violated, by such 'Absolute Abduction Hypotheses' as 'For every deduction, there's an opposite and equal induction' or otherwise stated as, 'The Deduction Fallacy and The Abduction/Induction Reality...' Imo, both sides need to learn new orders of categorizations and modelizations, to solve the globe's horrendous problems between believers and knowers...

Two different words and two different methodologies of validation[or invalidation]. Will such agreement be reached before the end of this century? I hope so.

Ludwik.

Imo, agreement about 'the logically necessary methodology' is in the spiritists/theists camp__as the 'Onus of Learning' is on them__not science...

Further imo, agreement will not be reached, unless the 's/t' camp is willing to advance their learning status... Science already understands both camps...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
http://constitutionus.com/

[labelwench]

The scientific method and the experience of spirituality would appear to arise in the brain.

The scientific method is applied to all things measurable while the spiritual experience has, as yet, no means of measure that is satisfactory to science.

Perhaps as we continue to learn more about the brain and how it functions we will come to a means of quantifying the experiential, or at least better understanding the mechanisms involved in a manner that enables a more respectful dialogue between the two camps.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The scientific method and the experience of spirituality would appear to arise in the brain.

Yes maybe so__but, the scientific method is externally based, and the experience of spirit is internally based__unless 'bio-bodies in motion' are considered by external scientific measurement__Also...

One must also realize__The geo-combinatoric scientific method 'First' had to produce the 'bio-body with a brain'__or the internal spirit just simply goes in circles, contradictions and infinite regresses__trying to produce other pseudo-emergences, to measure with... That benefits no-one...

The above leaves the 'Fundamental Universal Exist' as 'a necessary eternal existence'__in at least 'one or more' of its many changing ground states of possible exists__as the only alternative to such other pseudo-emergent impossibilities, from impossible nothings and other such impossible invisibles... At least science has no measurement of such meta-exists...

This view may be different for knowers and believers__and herein lies the 'hinge of knowing and not knowing'__at the epistemic limits of knowing and not knowing systems...

[labelwench]

This view may be different for knowers and believers__and herein lies the 'hinge of knowing and not knowing'__at the epistemic limits of knowing and not knowing systems...
Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

LOL......Well, I know that I do not know, and also that neither camp has entirely convincing arguments regards our origins or that of the universe, so I'll continue as I have, entertaining all possibilities. I prefer to discount only those suppositions that are harmful to self or others. All else has possibility, in my simple world.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You know, it's funny how people always consider individuals feelings, but usually never consider scientists' feelings... I've always wondered why so many couldn't see both sets of feelings, especially those of atheists as well as theists...

Seems to be nothing but pure prejudice on both sides__to me... And, I don't think it can be avoided__and have truth respected__at the same time...

Try as anyone wishes__They will always insult one side or the other__imo, it's absolutely un-avoidable__until much higher levels of intellectual evolution of both sides, are reached... Imo, that's a long way into the future__possibly millennia__unless we simply outlaw the un-necessary... My vote is for a priority of fully categorized necessities, of sustainable species' survival...

Of course we could all try to understand the 'Absolute Abduction Hypotheses'__or the 'Unification Without Negation Inductions...' But, I think people still fear far too strongly, what they don't yet comprehend, therefore don't want to learn__and how long this will continue, is anyone's guess...

Am I forcing...? No... Merely pointing out the deeper problems of any possible path unifications...