Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

[kowalskil]

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Google and Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.

[greenbug]

In here it seems to be a well mix. There is some friction. You can tell who is well founded in either or, as neither delve into subjects they do not wish to concede to. If they do they manipulate it to support their ideas, which at times can be helpful and invigorating but other times it can be annoying. Mainly when some one goes on and on instead of not fallowing the rules of the forum. Yet each person is there own, after reaching a repute most know how far they can go.

Just like any relationship, there is compromise between abstract and scientific points of view. Can it happen peacefully? Lol arguments and compromise happen every day, as long as it keeps going, that’s peaceful enough for me.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Deity was (would have been) a great scientist Himself…

The Deity

Another God appeared, in my imagination, a mere Deity, (meaning no intervention, so he’s not a Theity), and thusly said, “Forget the Theity solution. I am the smart God that seeded evolution. It was I that set the whole universal notion and all of life’s evolution into motion; that was my elegant and foreseeing way of creating the kind of life that would stay.”

“I thought you were all powerful; why not just make 20-40 million species all fully formed, as immutable as thee, along with their usable natural habitats, for this is how most Gods would do it? What energy loss could that be to you? Your infinity could all this in an instant do.”

“I’m not so great, plus, evolution is too stable for some creationists to scoff at, as a fable, so they have assigned the job to Me, the Creator, as all of nature’s natural instigator, because, they must take full retreat from their first ID God who zooms souls into humans at birth—it’s so odd. So, now I am not a Theity any more of proof and thus I must ever remain aloof. Of course now I have very little to do and so I am not much needed—true, for I can’t even muddle with their lives; they are all stuck now with their wives. I might really just as well retire, for I am superfluous and tired.”

“Well, you’re still kind of close to our universe, not completely outside it, maybe, the place the worst, as I suppose your successor will have to be placed, absolutely, totally invisible to the human race. At least you made some basic primordial substance and foresaw the billion years of combinatorial chance, predicting every turn, or at least knowing that something neat might probably come out of it, which was still quite a feat.”

“Thank you, but it was nothing.”

“On the contrary—I say verily—you’re the super scientist, an engineer par excellance—the ultimate inventor of all time—much better than than the old God of ID.”

“Yes, I am a scientist, making all that’s real—I had to be, but it was really no big deal.”

“You’re too modest.”

“It was just some little quarks and some electrons that I sparked and some forces that arose as reality was composed.”

“But look what became of its simplicity—through its stages to astounding complexity over billions of years of circumstances; we’ve traced the composites back to those simple substances.”

“Well, um, it did really take that long for my intention, by some coincidence the same as that for evolution; however, I guess I’m just as surprised as you—frown, that when some examine substance and get down to these simple subatomic levels of unadorned things, that they then take a giant leap back, of all things, to the composite complexity of Me, the Ultimate.

“Isn’t complexity a much higher product of combination upon combination, and thus not lower than simplicity itself?”

“Yes, it would seem so; that’s a near empty shelf.”

Then I suppose you’re some great alien scientist, odd, highly evolved from somewhere else, but not really God.”

“True, and you, Austin, as a scientist, should seek what underlies the all, not some great complexity who oversees it, for that’s for what the theory calls.”

“Wise thoughts.”

“The best that can’t be bought.”

“Well, whatever on the alien thing of it, but the creationists are not keen on scientists, for scientists regard the honest seeking after truth as as supreme virtue beyond all reproof.

If they ever found out…”

“Yikes, they know not what they have made me. As a scientist myself, I truly value honesty and skepticism over the dishonestly faked beliefs, those that only seem to bring Rolaid’s relief.”

“The founding fathers of America liked you, although some of them, as Thomas Jefferson, too, were outright non theists, many seeing you as a Deity who just started things up, never interfering with reality.”

“Funny how President Bush’s America sings, straying so oppositely from its humble beginnings.”

“Not to mention that some the world’s peoples, really, are squandering their precious time worshiping a Theity, and sacrificing to him, begging, fighting, and dying for Him, even threatening the world with its destruction.”

“What a waste.”

“Are you real?”

“No, I am but a figment of imagination, see, but some really do like harmless old Me.”

“So, what’s really fundamental?”

“The real fundamentals, just below what you now call ‘fundamentality’, have always existed—the quantum reality.”

“There’s perhaps no time of ‘forever’ at that level for your ‘always’ ever.”

“True, they just are, and had to be—the possible, for a state of absolute nothing is indeed impossible.”

[Bogie]

Kind of a veiled welcome, but you did finally come to the point Austin, lol. And Kowalskil, peace and peaceful coexistence between religion and science must be taught to us as children. I see little progress in that direction . However, I also don't see it as un-peaceful as it stands. I guess I'll have to check out the link to see where you are coming from, lol.

Edit: OK then, I took a look. Not a hot issue for me but I have opinions I'm always willing to share.

I recently said in the ChatterBox, it is a good policy to consider all Science to be tentative .

I also have been known to say that anything that seems supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.

My view, the universe has always existed, there was no beginning. However, there is much that we don't know about nature and some suspect that there are as yet unknown aspects of nature that assure the presence of habitable environments, the generation and evolution of life in those environments enabling intelligent contemplative individuals, and that it has always been that way.

[Mikal]

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Google and Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.

Hi Ludwik...I followed your link and this statement caught my attention...

"But kinds of evidence in two worlds (material and spiritual) are different."

Personally looking on my own life experience, I would see this statement as true. I think this is the clincher and would determine peaceful co-existance and mutual respect if this were to be understood.

I do believe we are existing in two worlds and my life has borne out that very issue which I have had to seek answers to and find peace of mind with.

Thank you for the possibility to discuss this very important issue.

Regards Mikal

[SteveA]

I enjoy seeing a similar perspective as my own in your comments, Ludwik. I had a religious upbringing, but never really "got" what people were talking about except that some of the ideas or ideals seemed worth hanging on to and I think I never lost at least some belief in a spiritual aspect of life, even if I had little idea of what that was specifically.

I've enjoyed science, mathematics and technology (my father was an artist but loved following the 'latest and greatest' things in science and I had similar interests) but maybe almost 10 years ago I 'hit the end of my rope' in some ways in science on another site when it came to trying to understand how time could operate. I've spend I don't know how many years trying to figure out what form of mechanism could allow for an appearance of change or time to exist and I've come to the realization that time and precise logic are incompatible - oil and water - if ever I is dotted and T crossed, there are no degrees of freedom left for anything to be altered and there is no form of change or time present in such and to me that seemed basically "beyond magic" ... something in experience exists which appears impossible to precisely define in a logical manner (there are some other things for which it might be possible to say the same, but in the 'model' I've been using I assume those to be derived from the capability of change to exist). In many ways, every other area of science is just that of complexities of quantities or forms, but these are things we can rationalize about and develop over time and refine various aspects of precision or discover new properties etc., but the fact that any of that is possible to begin with is something that can still leave me stunned ... that something impossible exists rather front and center to most every experience in life. It's taken for granted and the implications appear to be often overlooked.

It was that insight that has slowly brought me to reconsidering some of the more metaphysical, spiritual and religious aspects people have presented in life and I've begun to find many ways in which some of the ideas I've been trying to put together have quite a few qualitatively similar aspects as those ideas that have been declared as outside science, yet in other ways it seems that if we truly apply sciencitific principles and logic, that many areas commonly declared to be outside science are not, in truth beyond science to work with.

The primarily issue appears to be that science, as much of everything else in life, is actually an inherently individual pursuit and we can't communicate about or physically prove the existence of many aspects of experience. So if we consider science to be solely that which physical communication and proof is available, then if we took a very firm stance on this, it would appear that even something as pervasive to physics as motion or change can't be precisely demonstrated to exist (because these rely upon memories of past physical states to exist, but nothing more than the present moment is available to be witnessed. For example, for two people to witness a change in state of a system from A to B, both have to have a memory of this transition, but when the system is in state B, there's no manner to demonstrate that is was in state A previously, hence most everything in science already relies upon intangible conscious/mental aspects of experience).

I've got some ideas on the general manner that I believe things can fit together and similar to ideas of parallel worlds, the present moment could be considered similar to the intersection of all possible timelines that pass through an experience compatible with the present moment. I believe laws of physics arise from the manners in which properties accumulated over time can be interacted with and that consciousness acts as a selective bias in how such an accumulation over time evolves.

It also appears there are ways in which such creative energies can act in coordination in time by having their influences distributed, though it appears there's no rational way of removing an asymmetry of ones own (innate) "selection" of a reference for time.

The universe could be seen as containing diverse entities moving independently of each other, but there's ones own experiences of events in time and all motions one witnesses can be compared to common units of time - so though these motions can be witnessed as isolated and independent, they're still all related to a common metric for time shared by everything in ones universe.

It appears that capability to experience change is not something that change itself could provide - if something has no ability to become anything else, then it can't be changed to become something capable of that. That ability to experience change would appear to have to be an innate property outside of an alteration by time and so, in this sense, I believe that everything potentially has its own unique reference for time (similar to observations in Relativity of different local frames for time or in quantum mechanics of observer dependencies), though it also appears that such a capability is a communal/shared property in ones universe (though these ideas would make it rather redundant to say "ones universe" as it's implicit in everything, though I'm trying to emphasize that in many ways there's no manner to reference anything outside of ones own view of things. I believe time is evidence of an entropy from "outside", but the specifics of that interface appear to defy precise logical description and it might as well be that quantum wave collapses simply pick where they "want" to collapse, within whatever constraints are presented by the wavefunction. If you analogize that with learning of most anything, you can't select the specifics of what to learn because that's not something yet known, but the contexts surrounding learning and how one interpretes relationships between things to exist or the meanings behind those are aspects in which some self determination are available).

I don't think there's any specific God that runs the show for everything, though it does appear some self determined aspects are inescapable and I'd have to guess that if there's something that runs the show it would be an innate motive, force or desire (for example, if we were to take a Biblical concept of God and ask what determined actions by God and it was various motives and desires controlling those acts - the real "tyrrant" would appear to be emotional and I believe if one delves in a bit, that's an entirely acceptable form of tyrrany If there's anything needing to be done, would there be a reason to do anything other than whatever the best or most ideal action would be? It appears any attempt to deny this would simply be the expression of some other best/ideal form - for example, attempting to say that an exploration of less than optimal circumstances can result in unexpected discoveries is still representing some form of ideal (though as a long term value). Even trying to say that nothing at all is better in any sense than something, is still representing a form of ideal or value that is optimal within some context.

From that perspective, I've been trying to look at conditions in life relative to various ideals and I've been pleasantly surprised to realize that most every quality I'd consider to have some form of value is present in one manner or another and that's been something I can't write off as purely coincidental, though it could be that such ideals are acquired in life and a product of "external" influences, though that's not necessarily a problem and it would appear a necessary cost for any form of growth to occur, and as appears to be the usual case, yes, life appears to exist as a state of growth and that tradeoff is selected in a manner that it appears I'd desire - (notice that if something began as a discrete individual "self" without specific other properties, if ever any change were to occur the capability for that self to be changed would appear to have to already be innate, hence in some ways there would be no decision involved in this, but a way to look at it is whether or not one is of the type to desire exploring, experiencing or knowing absolutely anything at all ... if there's something that one could not resist at least some curiousity about, then it would appear that quality is what would determine the existence of time ... so it appears "Now" is a matter of dealing with that, on the other hand it can be entirely enjoyable if done right, so it appears getting ones priorities in line is a good idea and figuring out the order of underlying principles that determine ones preferred coarse of actions is beneficial in reducing internal conflicts - if you're going to do something and aren't simply acting in some "random" manner (assuming such is possible, which it appears time potentially allows), then there should some ideal that such an action is relative to and in that case, it can be beneficial to understand that ideal in order to allow intelligent coordination relative to it and avoid (at least the appearance of) self conflicts. Most everything appears to have value, but finding how those values best relate to oneself can be a challenge, though that's also a potentially quite rewarding challenge ).

Again, welcome to TQ. I hope you enjoy the site.

[austintorn@aol.com]

In my everyday life, I personally don’t get into these problems, as I live and let live, unless someone asks or knocks on my door, especially the dreaded Jehovah Witnesses, who are programmed beyond redemption.

Belief in the supernatural is but an emotional notion, if not often just copying what’s around, this empty notion not even having the status of even a theory, the religious still often trying to convert other people, even those of other religions. This is not endearing to a peaceful coexistence of live and let live.

Furthermore, they outright deceive, presenting their notions as pure fact and truth, which is surely unethical, and so cannot be any kind of a move towards peace. The inherent problem is that they often don’t know any better, guaranteeing no peace at all, not to mention holy wars.

Since they have zero to push forward with, they must either resort to blindly pushing against facts, this action mostly born out of psychological ‘neglect’ of fact, or must utilize anger to show that they can’t possibly be wrong. Not very peaceful, really.

There is not even peaceful coexistence among differing religions, especially those with very major differences in what they fabricated as unchanging dogma, done all at once, engraved in stone, such as about the divinity of Jesus, the Immaculate Conception, one god versus many gods, Heaven/Hell versus reincarnation, Buddha (a human only) versus a God, a Deity versus a Theity, Intelligent Design, New-Earth Creationists, Fundamentalists, symbolists, and many more conflicting irrational beliefs based mostly on geographical, social, and familial influences from some myths made up long ago, or more recently, upon the great failures of all of the above.

All fail to note that all they have to work with are imagined invisibles and/or felt sensations way up upon the ‘second story’ narrative above the neurological first floor basis beneath, these states of being and sense of a natural right-brain ‘presence’ not exactly being the state beneath, uninformed as they are of it.

This contention of religions even amongst themselves is because the sheer existence of any contrary religious dogma threatens to greatly lessen their own credibility. This happens when one utilizes ‘faith’, which is merely the firm and ridiculous belief in the unseeable, unknowable made-up unknown, plus so many subsequent structures, and more, fabricated and layered upon to form the entire toppling house of cards. And we haven’t even gotten to nonbelievers or science yet.

None of this can be noted by the religious because strong emotions have a direct path into consciousness, thus bypassing any normal logic and rationality. Peaceful coexistence is not at all likely in any way, shape, or form.

Also, God is surely disproved via self-contradiction, and so the idea is of no consequence but perhaps for the feelings of the emotional security of being taken care of, which is fine for anyone to feel, for we are all completely free to be. (even thus for those who say they can't know, for how could they be blamed)

[r.p.bibra]

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Google and Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.

you are free to read ls (little self) blog titled "Glimpses in Reality" and 'Quest in Reality". Love&regards.ls

[kowalskil]

In my everyday life, I personally don’t get into these problems, as I live and let live, unless someone asks or knocks on my door, especially the dreaded Jehovah Witnesses, who are programmed beyond redemption.

Belief in the supernatural is but an emotional notion, if not often just copying what’s around, this empty notion not even having the status of even a theory, the religious still often trying to convert other people, even those of other religions. This is not endearing to a peaceful coexistence of live and let live.

Furthermore, they outright deceive, presenting their notions as pure fact and truth, which is surely unethical, and so cannot be any kind of a move towards peace. The inherent problem is that they often don’t know any better, guaranteeing no peace at all, not to mention holy wars.

Since they have zero to push forward with, they must either resort to blindly pushing against facts, this action mostly born out of psychological ‘neglect’ of fact, or must utilize anger to show that they can’t possibly be wrong. Not very peaceful, really.

There is not even peaceful coexistence among differing religions, especially those with very major differences in what they fabricated as unchanging dogma, done all at once, engraved in stone, such as about the divinity of Jesus, the Immaculate Conception, one god versus many gods, Heaven/Hell versus reincarnation, Buddha (a human only) versus a God, a Deity versus a Theity, Intelligent Design, New-Earth Creationists, Fundamentalists, symbolists, and many more conflicting irrational beliefs based mostly on geographical, social, and familial influences from some myths made up long ago, or more recently, upon the great failures of all of the above.

All fail to note that all they have to work with are imagined invisibles and/or felt sensations way up upon the ‘second story’ narrative above the neurological first floor basis beneath, these states of being and sense of a natural right-brain ‘presence’ not exactly being the state beneath, uninformed as they are of it.

This contention of religions even amongst themselves is because the sheer existence of any contrary religious dogma threatens to greatly lessen their own credibility. This happens when one utilizes ‘faith’, which is merely the firm and ridiculous belief in the unseeable, unknowable made-up unknown, plus so many subsequent structures, and more, fabricated and layered upon to form the entire toppling house of cards. And we haven’t even gotten to nonbelievers or science yet.

None of this can be noted by the religious because strong emotions have a direct path into consciousness, thus bypassing any normal logic and rationality. Peaceful coexistence is not at all likely in any way, shape, or form.

Also, God is surely disproved via self-contradiction, and so the idea is of no consequence but perhaps for the feelings of the emotional security of being taken care of, which is fine for anyone to feel, for we are all completely free to be. (even thus for those who say they can't know, for how could they be blamed)

It is difficult to address all aspects of this complex topic at once. Differences between deists is one aspect; exploitation of religions by politicians is another, etc. etc. The only way to advance is to start by focusing on the main idea, in the idealized universe (with one kind of deists and no politics). Is peaceful coexistence possible in the idealized model? If not then it is the end of the story. If yes, then details can be discussed; one aspect after another.
.
.

[labelwench]

It is difficult to address all aspects of this complex topic at once. Differences between deists is one aspect; exploitation of religions by politicians is another, etc. etc. The only way to advance is to start by focusing on the main idea, in the idealized universe (with one kind of deists and no politics). Is peaceful coexistence possible in the idealized model? If not then it is the end of the story. If yes, then details can be discussed; one aspect after another.
.
.

Peaceful co-existence is made possible by the rules of manners, which deal with subjects of mutual intolerance quite strictly.

It has long been considered bad form to discuss religion or politics in mixed venues, as people's opinions and emotions run strong on these topics.

The 'middle ground' can be shared and is most often demonstrated when catastrophy threatens life itself.

In such case, most persons are capable of suspending their deist/science differences while the basic needs of challenges to survival are met.

It may require the survival of our entire species threatened to unite the minds of deists and science in the search for a solution to a mutual threat, yet I do consider that peaceful co-existence is possible as we learn more in regard to the process of life itself and how our combined senses allows each of us unique perspective.