Religious fervour

[Geminize]

My point is this: All advancements in science, which we all find very easy to accept, are based upon previously accepted "facts". The scientific method is actually a "faith-based" process whereby a particular outcome is believed to be possible, then experiments are devised to produce results which we hope will match the prediction.

A humorous, light-hearted but insightful look at these ideas is "What the #$%! Do We Know", a movie starring Marlee Matlin that explains the new world of Quantum Physics and how it relates to our ideas of religion and spirituality.

Lalo, I hope you know I respect your contributions here, and I disagree with you on this one. I have been fascinated lately with the question, "how do we know what we know?" (Both on an individual and a societal level.) I embrace the scientific method as the best option we have for revealing the truth.

Ideally, the scientific method is a process whereby a particular outcome or cause is hypothesized, then experiments are devised to disprove the hypothesis. As the number and robustness of experiments grow, the hypothesis is either supported or refuted. Good science is difficult and takes a painfully long time.

As for the film, What the #$%! Do We Know, I found the whole thing rather sad. I wanted to be amazed and inspired, but I felt let down. The subjects seemed to me to be delusional people making money by spreading their delusions.

A quote attributed to one of my heros, Richard Feynman, goes "Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics." That coming from one who was most qualified to claim to understand quantum mechanics.

I love a good mystery, and life is full of them. I can get lost in music, feel a universal connection through ritual or ecstasy, experience any number of things I can't explain. At this point I have no need for belief or faith in God to be part of my relationship to life and its mysteries.

[gilhooly]

I am a devout pagan who believes in one God who created the universe. I avoid organized religion because it fosters more hate than love. A pagan loves the world quietly and prays to God where ever he is.

On 4 separate occasions I have seen ghosts of people I loved. Recently, 2 old friends came by to cheer me up We discussed our itinerary in heaven when I get there. The price to see a ghost is that you must have saved that person from death during his lifetime. I had saved both of these guys from getting killed by accident.

I enjoy talking to these guys about what happened to them when they eventually died. It was interesting. God had no part of judgment, we judge each other. The explanation was both terrifying and nice. My friends said most people had a good opinion of me. I was easy to get along with. They told me of some others I knew who were sent to hell for sickening greed. I was surprised. Gay sex never came up. Only rapes are held against people.

Again, the most common reason they saw people go to hell was GREED. People who take more from the world than they add to it. I was surprised how harsh judgment was for selfish people. The 2 guys I was talking to were gay. They told me about a selfish old queen who was sent to hell with the approval of gay guys watching.

Gay was irrelevant. Greed is relevant. I don'y want to spend eternity with a bunch of selfish creeps. They can go to hell. Hell is between the voids between matter and energy. The temp is absolute zero. You are imprisoned with yourself for eternity. Neither God or anyone else goes near you.
As you sow, so shall you reap!!!!!

[Lalo]

Lalo, I hope you know I respect your contributions here, and I disagree with you on this one. I have been fascinated lately with the question, "how do we know what we know?" (Both on an individual and a societal level.) I embrace the scientific method as the best option we have for revealing the truth.

Ideally, the scientific method is a process whereby a particular outcome or cause is hypothesized, then experiments are devised to disprove the hypothesis. As the number and robustness of experiments grow, the hypothesis is either supported or refuted. Good science is difficult and takes a painfully long time.

As for the film, What the #$%! Do We Know, I found the whole thing rather sad. I wanted to be amazed and inspired, but I felt let down. The subjects seemed to me to be delusional people making money by spreading their delusions.

A quote attributed to one of my heros, Richard Feynman, goes "Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics." That coming from one who was most qualified to claim to understand quantum mechanics.

I love a good mystery, and life is full of them. I can get lost in music, feel a universal connection through ritual or ecstasy, experience any number of things I can't explain. At this point I have no need for belief or faith in God to be part of my relationship to life and its mysteries.

I understand what you are saying about the film. To a large degree, it is mythos combined with pseudo-science and a poor attempt to explain quantum mechanics and universal consciousness. I posted it not because I think that it is the definitive word on the subject, only that it does simplify some of the aspects of quantum mechanics which may pertain to God, and is therefore helpful in explaining my view on the subject.

I also do not disagree with any of your statements about the scientific method. However, I must point out that none of those statements actually address the fact that the scientific method is inherently flawed due to perception. There is no scientific test ever performed which does not rely on the human brain (as far as we know) to interpret the results. Therefore, although the scientific method may teach us many things about what we perceive to be our world, it fails miserably when it comes to the discussion of philosophy. An example that I have used before in similar conversations is this: You and I look at the sky and we both say that the sky is blue. We are in agreement. Yet what does "blue" mean? We can scientifically analyze the rods and cones in the eye to determine whether the color blue CAN be perceived. But what we cannot analyze is how our brains interpret the color. When I see blue, do I see the same color that you do? How do we know? How do my emotions affect how I see the color "blue"? How do we compare when every comparison will involve the same level of interpretation? This is why I caution the use of "facts". Because if we are honest, ALL facts are mutually agreed upon "perceptions". They have to be because WE are the ones perceiving them. This is where philosophy and science meet- somewhere between Standard Model of particle physics and quantum mechanics!

Theories of quantum mechanics DO point to a bridge between science and "magic"/"God"/"spirituality"/"creation" etc. Does it supply all of the answers? Of course not. But it is supplying a LOT of the right questions.

So, in the end, I have to turn your own question back on you. "How do we know what we know?" And my point is this: it always comes down to "faith"/"belief". You choose to "believe" in science, and that is fine. But you cannot refute the fact that our own senses, our very humanity, limits what we can perceive/interpret about the natural world. (At least at the present time.) Personally, I choose to believe in BOTH science and religion. I believe that history has frequently shown that yesterday's magic is in fact tomorrow's science.

As for the quote from Richard Feynman, "Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics." Once again, I heartily concur. I am NOT a quantum physicist and I never claimed to be one. In fact, my rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics is probably just enough to be dangerous. LOL

[Geminize]

There is no scientific test ever performed which does not rely on the human brain (as far as we know) to interpret the results. Therefore, although the scientific method may teach us many things about what we perceive to be our world, it fails miserably when it comes to the discussion of philosophy.

Again, I disagree. Someone's experience based on faith can stand on it's own and be accepted as one's own truth. (Although I consider that to fall under a sloppy definition of 'truth.') Someone's experience within the realm of science must be repeated, independently verified, subjected to confirmation by others. It's not perfect, but it does attempt to reduce some of the limitations and fallacies of the individual human brain.

I believe that history has frequently shown that yesterday's magic is in fact tomorrow's science.

This is one of the reasons I have lost faith in magic and religion. As science advances, our need for God as an explanation for anything seems to retreat in kind.

[trialbyerror]

Hi to all
Once again, thanks for ALL contributions. A lively and interesting discussion that's gone down many avenues...

Regards
Trial by error