outer-theism for servants, inner-theism for leaders

You will also see the allegory of "lack of belief" being akin to "not collecting stamps."

reply to post by sinohptik



Or making a correlation between the lack of belief in God with the lack of belief in magical unicorns, santa, goblins, or flying spaghetti monsters.

Are these attempts to disarm by demeaning? Sometimes it feels like it.

Originally posted by mysticnoon

I'm waiting for a scientific theory to come out regarding God. It seems so far, no scientist is willing to present a theory.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

I keep seeing these kind of statements from atheists on this site, and I don't understand the reasoning behind it.

One of the basic principles of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. How do you imagine a scientific theory regarding God could be constructed which meets the criterion of falsifiability?

As long as science excludes verifiable inner experiences as a valid investigative domain, it is logically impossible for science to produce a theory of metaphysical realities, let alone God.

I myself studied in the domain of Cognitive Science at university.
While I must agree that university punishes introspection,
far preferring that people regurgitate things near verbatim,
still at least in name Cognitive Science is the study of thought.

my specialization was in Artifical Intelligence,
and I'm a member of various general-intelligence mailing lists.
I have to admit, I might have been one of the first,
that thought of General Intelligence from a soul's perspective.
my general intelligence plan being to make a language for all domains.
since then the lists have been rather quiet.

I work on my human-speakable programming-language sometimes,
but at this stage in life, spirits say I'd benefit more from making music.
as I'd have a product available for people to experience it more quickly.

already I've made music with chuck a musical programming language.
eventually music will be integrated into the general-intelligence,
so that it could generate songs from content on the fly.
it'll be able to use music for education,
or various other functions.

humans prefer song,
over basic speech,
sometimes.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

I've tried your systematic way

I prefer meditation,

That is exactly the systematic method we are referring to :-).
Yes meditate, that's a critical component,
to becoming a free-thinker.

introspect,
find out what's in you.
identify your life path and goals.

I don't expect to unravel mysteries of the universe and it's creator (if any) by doing so.

well you certainly can.
as I have earlier described.

the dark emptiness zero-mother 0000...
the bright fullness ever-father 1111...

I'll keep an open-mind though.

excellent! :-)

Originally posted by tiger5
The role of otrhodoox religion in social control is well known. The antics of the various royal families and other Elites makes it clear that many do not respect religion.
A good example is the British royal family.

they are totally intertwined with freemasonry,
the top of the Freemason hierarchy being Lucifer Illuminati.
and partake in various occult practices.
they support communicating with spirits,
so are clearly inner-theistic to an extent.
which is quite useful for their leadership role.


Sure they might not be whole-heartedly Christian,
they have blood-line roots from Israel,
so may also have some Jewish beliefs.
they still support faith of some sort.

reply to post by mysticnoon

One of the basic principles of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. How do you imagine a scientific theory regarding God could be constructed which meets the criterion of falsifiability?

Exactly, you can't falsify a positive assertion that hides behind an unfalsifiable hypothesis. I could say there is a teapot on the moon of Jupiter, but our telescopes cannot see it, Does that make it true? Just because it can't be falsified? Does it make it false? Neither, you can't prove it.

I've just made up a theory you can' t prove or falsify. It's irrational. I didn't use any maths or logic.

As long as science excludes verifiable inner experiences as a valid investigative domain, it is logically impossible for science to produce a theory of metaphysical realities, let alone God.

Incorrect, multiverse theorem is a metaphysical theory. You can't demonstrate it's truth or falsehood with evidence or observation but it is formed using rationalisation of our universe, using mathematics and quantam theorem. Although i can't put my belief in multiverse theory, I'd sooner trust a rationally formed theory to a pre-ssumptious speculative theory based on no logical or empirical evidence.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Exactly, you can't falsify a positive assertion that hides behind an unfalsifiable hypothesis. I could say there is a teapot on the moon of Jupiter, but our telescopes cannot see it, Does that make it true?

Funny you should mention telescopes. One of my favorite metaphors for mystical investigation. Pretty much what Lowki is asking you to do.

[...]

"To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about.

One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.

As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.

So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents." (emphasis mine)

[...]

-Sam Harris, The Problem with Atheism

reply to post by Student X


I agree that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Carl Sagan was a great promoter of this idea, especially as an agnostic.

But by that measure, i could make any unprovable theory up, and then complain when someone doubts it or has concerns how it was logically, empirically or rationally formed.

Russel's Teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Love Sam Harris btw, I'm happy to admit their are problems with Atheism. Disblief at a given theory shouldn't require a label. I don't have labels for the lack of belief in Santa Claus, Fairies, or Goblins, I just expect someone to provide empirical evidence before attacking me for concerns with logic, evidence or rationale. I don't have a name for not believing in Santa Claus, i just don't believe it.

Hey there awake_ any any other like-minded individuals

I know we decided to agree to disagree, on everything, and i absolutely do not wish to change our arrangement of that. seriously...

But i did have a question that i was wondering. Have you personally worked through the scientific and mathematical equations, algorithms, and experiments that make up your view of reality, or truth? meaning, have you performed the actual and literal research and experiments on the concepts and equations? When you see a scientific theory that says anything, do you perform your own scientific method-based query?

*disclaimer and to clarify, no answer is "right" or "wrong." there is no conclusion to be made by me, no matter what the answers are. I am not interested in starting a.. "debate." I am just curious how you perform your search, as i am with everyone. We have had great misunderstandings on that concept, so please just take it at face value. I have zero interest in proving anything, disproving anything, changing your mind, you trying to change my mind, or anything of the sort. I am not interesting in arguing, semantics, or anything of the sort. I wish to have a discussion. This is not being posed as the basis for any "debate," nor will it be used as such by me.

I am merely curious how you choose to form your perspective.

reply to post by sinohptik

But i did have a question that i was wondering. Have you personally worked through the scientific and mathematical equations, algorithms, and experiments that make up your view of reality, or truth? meaning, have you performed the actual and literal research and experiments on the concepts and equations? When you see a scientific theory that says anything, do you perform your own scientific method-based query?

No, this would be farcical unless it was a new theory i had, and evidence or logic to demonstrate it. Or if i had evidence or logic that proves another theory wrong. I admit, i am no scientist, and certainly have no great mathematical prowess - it would unwise of me to attempt to apply scientific methodology and expect to further human knowledge. ( i'm just being modest )

I don't need to develop my own satelite and imagery equipment in order to confirm the Earth is round, this is now fact, because of scientific knowledge.

Science is always at the edge of the known, if it's unknown we can attempt to rationalise theories using information and applying the scientific method. It may be that something "supernatural" or "unknown" soon becomes the known, and it can have a mulitude of practical applications in the material world.

As an agnostic, like Carl Sagan, i agree that adbsense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense. But guesses or attempts at revealing the unknown should be done in a rational, logical manner, It's the only means by discovering demonstratable, provable knowledge. It's been a reliable method of understanding our reality so far.

Unfalsifiable hypothesis are not always false, but certainly not always true. (Hell, Heaven, Unicorns, Fairies)

Multiverse theory is a metaphysical hypothesis, you can't demonstrate it, you can't "PROVE IT" - But you can mathematically and scientifically attempt to rationalise such a theory. This is how the multiverse theorem is formed, using current information and knowledge of our universe. This is rational formation.

Unfalsifiable hypothesis are guilty of being irrational when there is no logical or empirical reason for forming such a theory.

Another unprovable or unfalsifiable claim is that "I can fly, but only when no person is observing" - So long, as i add the "only when no person is observing" no one can falsify my claims, this doesn't make it true. this doesn't make it false either.

I don't need to re-test Newtonian physics using my own experiments, the evidence speaks for itself. If someone really wants to oppose Newtonians findings they would have to oppose truth. His findings were a simple formula that helped equate the force and motions of gravity, I'm not going to verify his findings, it's time wasting. Ask any scientist.

In short, scientists do not assert a belief or a theory before having logical or empirical evidence to do so, (they should also expect to be proved wrong if they make a mistake) That includes their belief towards a divine creator.

This same rationale applies to questions of the source of the universe. They currently are agnostic, science has no current information or theory to determine the "why" or the "who" of reality (or even if a "who" is required)

It would be dishonest of a thinker, in the pursuit of truth to blindly accept. Open-mindedness is an intelligent approach to take. With the majority of top scientists being either (Agnostic) Atheist or non-religious, i feel it's a safe position to take.

I'm not just appealing to minority, but i appreciate the honest and intellectual approach to "What is the cause of reality?"

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I appreciate your in-depth response awake_

The idea wasnt coming from a stance of proving anything wrong or right. It was the idea that in performing these experiments, and replicating equations, etc. one can come to a greater individual understanding on the given topic. No more, no less.

"Ask any scientist" is a relatively easy thing for this one to do

thanks again, friend!

reply to post by sinohptik


Thanks for your question, a good point to pose.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Positive assertion - Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Which, again, is your belief.

However, I don't see that the burden of proof is all that relevant to the discussion we're having, as I'm not saying that an atheist has any burden of proof to ''explain'' their stance.

I'm merely disputing the fact that an absence of belief is not a belief.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I don't have a word for my lack of belief in Santa, Fairies or Goblins. I wish i didn't have a label for my lack of belief in a deity.

Atheism - Is the lack of belief in a deity.

The existence of a word to describe a disbelief or lack of belief in any concept is not important.

Whether a word exists or not, in no way alters the position. The word ''atheist'' is only used as an easier way to convey a mutually understandable word, thought or expression; the same thought could be equally conveyed by saying ''I don't believe in God or gods'', just the same as saying ''I don't believe in Santa'' or ''I don't believe in goblins''.

Consequently, any position that involves disbelief of any concept is still a belief, regardless of the terminology that describes it; just because the belief incorporates an ultimate conclusion of disbelief doesn't change this fact.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Agnosticism/Gnosticism - What you know.
Theism/Atheism - What you do or don't believe.

What's the difference between knowledge and belief ? There is no way that you can separate the two in an objective manner, as they are based entirely on immeasurable and arbitrary lines that change between one person and another.

Two people may have the same evidence at their disposal, yet one decides to believe in something based on this evidence, while the other claims to have knowledge based on this same evidence, because he may have less stringent and discernible lines between the concepts of knowledge and belief.

When the only difference between knowledge and belief is based on the highly variable and subjective self-definition of these concepts, then to apply them to a more objective position is, not only problematic, but pointless.

Any difference between knowledge and belief is moot, hence why it doesn't make sense to separate atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism.

If knowledge and belief are separate concepts, then what do you call someone who ''knows'' that God exists ?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I also believe there is no teapot on pluto, that's a "belief" too by your standards.

Your lack of belief in a teapot on Pluto is formed by your belief that there is no evidence for the existence of it.

Once we're aware of a claim, we can choose to accept or reject it, based on our own personal experiences and the evidence we've encountered in our lives.

Nothing is self-evident; we must first draw on our own personal experiences and beliefs to assess any claim or concept.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
For every unfalsifiable hypothesis, i would suspend belief and judgement until i had further evidence. I don't consider "faith" (blind faith) to be a virtue. Even if it appears to be a rational metaphysical claim (Multiverse theorem)

And that is your personal belief system, which is based on your faith.

It is impossible for anyone to have any kind of belief system without it being circular and eventually self-defeating; empiricism is no different in this regard.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Other rational based unfalsifiable hypothesis like metaphysics i can at least put SOME trust in. As the conclusions are reached using mathematical rationalisations of our current knowledge of reality.

You personally can have faith in it if it agrees with your own personal standards. This doesn't mean that any full or partial trust or faith in anything is any more or less valid than anybody else's.

It's back to the ultimate and unavoidable circular reasoning that humans must form the basis of all of their beliefs/knowledge upon.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Many scientists don't believe before having evidence, the pursuit of truth demands we keep our minds open, why would that particular rationale be any different regarding religious dogma or answering whether a deity exists or not?

It shouldn't be any different for a good scientist when he is conducting an experiment which may conflict with his individual beliefs or disbeliefs.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
The majority of scientists either express having no religion, a large proportion being Agnostic Atheists. I'm not saying that this supports the truth that there is no God. I just think it's an intelligent stance to take. As do many famous intellects (past and present).

A scientist's individual beliefs should have little relevance on his work; as I say, a good scientist can easily separate their personal beliefs from their objective studies.

Saying a lot of famous intellects were atheist doesn't really add support to this idea, as many famous intellects and scientists also believed in God.

I don't think one position or the other really negatively or positively effects any work in these departments, and ultimately, it is a personal choice for each person to come to.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Nice to see you again Holmes, btw. Happy new year.

Thanks. Same to you too.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

What's the difference between knowledge and belief? There is no way that you can separate the two in an objective manner, as they are based entirely on immeasurable and arbitrary lines that change between one person and another.

Theres nothing arbitrary regarding the concept of belief and concept of knowledge. I understand the fundamental differences between the concepts.

Knowledge is knowing the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Belief is believing it's flat or beleving it's is spherical or round depending on how you rationalise the belief. Knowledge removes private prejudice or belief with publicly verifiable evidence. (i.e) Believing Earth is flat.

While the non-believer and the believer have the same evidence in front of them, it would be unwise to assume a creator, when a creator may not my nessasary for reality, it may be nessasary. We don't know yet, we may never know.

I feel it would be best to suspend belief or judgement until conclusive evidence is presented. Of course, the believer will point to reality, to their subjective experiences and ask "isn't this conclusive evidence enough?".

I believe your main point is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Carl Sagan once said that the Argument from ignorance is an "impatience with ambiguity" that indeed - ""absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

And i agree in some ways, it's a sort of "scientific patience" if you like, This is what forms Carl Sagan's agnostic belief; Because he is Agnostic inherently Atheist. Why would he believe religion could reveal such truths? The answer; he didn't. He suspends belief and judgement until he has the required evidence.

The argument from ignorance is an informal logical fallacy can be used by the Atheist and the Theist, so this is argumental stalemate.

My point is that, without knowing for certain what is the cause of reality, i have to be honest with myself, and decare myself Atheist until further knowledge or information is revealed.

I'm yet to be convinced by any logical or empirical argument in favour of a supernatural or "omnipotent" deity. I do not consider faith a virtue, therefore i suspend belief, and thus cannot rely on the subjective experience or words of other men.

I'll leave with this;

reply to post by awake_and_aware

by the way, when making definitions,
you must use different words in the definition.
citing examples is related but different from definition.


belief be a thought held in mind or thoughts that are reinforced by revisiting.

knowledge be past-experience.

so would you admit that the external (physical) world,
is the source of your "inspiration" or beliefs?

accepting the physical (external) world, as your sole creator?
well likely you know how babies happen.
though i presume you don't believe in a "soul",
so only the external can influence you.

also are you a hard-determinist or do you believe in free will?
implying there is a causal force within you.
if so, what is that causal force?

reply to post by lowki

by the way, when making definitions,
you must use different words in the definition.
citing examples is related but different from definition.

Why should i have to explain the difference between knowledge and belief.

Some people used to BELIEVE the earth is flat, and were proved wrong. Belief cannot be considered as knowledge or truth, but that doesn't mean belief cannot be truth.

I see a light in the sky, you might BELIEVE it was a UFO, another person might BELIEVE it was a shooting star. The truth to what the phenomonen is cannot be revealed until we KNOW what it is. Logic can be used to determine what it is NOT.

I'm not comparing God to a UFO, i'm just saying that's the difference between belief in knowledge, whether right or wrong/

I'm sorry if i don't include other words to explain fundamental differences between concepts. I really don't think i'd have to..... But if you still can't except my explanation, i'd be more than happy to.

I've said before, i don't know what created reality. There are some fundamental questions regarding evolution and conscioussness that even the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins would like the answer to, he's still searching. He's not going to assume anything though, neither would any cautious scientist in pursuit of the truth.

also are you a hard-determinist or do you believe in free will?
implying there is a causal force within you.
if so, what is that causal force?

Free will.

and what do you mean causal force? What causes the conscioussness that allows free will?

I don't know and like i've said even evolutionary biologists don't the have the answers (yet)

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by lowki

 

by the way, when making definitions,
you must use different words in the definition.
citing examples is related but different from definition.

Why should i have to explain the difference between knowledge and belief.

you should know the difference in objective terms, not just examples.

Some people used to BELIEVE the earth is flat, and were proved wrong. Belief cannot be considered as knowledge or truth, but that doesn't mean belief cannot be truth.

I see a light in the sky, you might BELIEVE it was a UFO, another person might BELIEVE it was a shooting star. The truth to what the phenomonen is cannot be revealed until we KNOW what it is. Logic can be used to determine what it is NOT.

truth is merely present-moment-experience.

see, you have this strange "belief" in an external-deity, or "objective-reality".

There is much evidence to the contrary,
such as witness testimony,
which is often diverse.

I remember in chemistry class,
I failed the chemical lab assignments,
since doing the experiments yielded wrong results.

To get good marks, like many other students,
I actually had to derive it from the math formulas.

This is well known,
even by physicists.

Unless you're really good at doing an experiment,
chances are you're results will differ extremely,
especially if you don't have observer bias.

Quantum-physics tells us,
that the observer selects a "truth",
out of the many possibilities.

Thereby supporting multiple-worlds,
each perspective has it's own world.

rocks, trees etcetera, also have a perspective,
and thereby can maintain and notify us where they are.

I'm not comparing God to a UFO, i'm just saying that's the difference between belief in knowledge, whether right or wrong/

do you see how you're ascribing to dualism?

right/wrong is purely perspective oriented.
as for each person that is different.

Right is what you believe is correct.
Wrong is what someone else believes that you disagree with.

I'm sorry if i don't include other words to explain fundamental differences between concepts. I really don't think i'd have to..... But if you still can't except my explanation, i'd be more than happy to.

I've said before, i don't know what created reality. There are some fundamental questions regarding evolution and conscioussness that even the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins would like the answer to, he's still searching. He's not going to assume anything though, neither would any cautious scientist in pursuit of the truth.

So you'd rather be ignorant... *shrugs*

If you don't formulate a hypothesis,
you can't do any scientific experiments.

By the way, it's quite possible,
to apply the scientific method,
to mental phenomena.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

also are you a hard-determinist or do you believe in free will?
implying there is a causal force within you.
if so, what is that causal force?

Free will.

and what do you mean causal force?
What causes the conscioussness that allows free will?

what, separate from the environment, and biology,
allows you to make decisions.

I don't know and like i've said even evolutionary biologists don't the have the answers (yet)

They couldn't possibly, since they are about biology, which is the body.
The body forms due to genes, a deterministic process.
the body can be modified by free-willed epi-genetics,
typically ascribed to environmental forces.

they would have you believe,
that all your decisions,
are due to either your body's needs (air, water, food, sex),
or the needs of the environment (what someone told you to do).

the only other motivator (causal force) for decisions is the soul.
which is what could give you wishes/decisions,
different from bodily or environmental needs.

this communication with your soul,
or other inner agents,
is what i mean by,
inner-theism.

reply to post by krzyspmac

Many mystics can't say that. They don't follow a particular religion due to dogmas which contradict their own expierences. Since they have experienced oneness/God/god/enlightement/awakening they cannot say they don't know. But what they know is complicated. They cannot dismiss it as pure delusion. Some attribute their expiernce to god some don't. They are gnostics, they know, and they know they cannot transfer that knowledge. One of the most complicated bunch of poeple out there.

Let me break it to you gently, friend, when one becomes a Mystic, religion and the dogma thereof slips away, and fades into a past that is soon forgotten. I think, in fact I strongly believe this is available to each and every individual soul on the planet. It is simply a matter of time before more and more pick up on this. It is called Ascension. Let's look at that word, shall we?
Definition of ASCENSION: the act or process of ascending
merriam-webster

It is the psychical process of rising above the dross of humanity and the third dimension. I think we all have a secret desire to rise above it all. So what's keeping you?

reply to post by lowki


I should know the difference in objective terms between knowledge and belief without using examples? I do. and so do you, just picking fail points, that add nothing to the debate.

So you'd rather be ignorant... *shrugs*

If you don't formulate a hypothesis,
you can't do any scientific experiments.

By the way, it's quite possible,
to apply the scientific method,
to mental phenomena.

You talk nonsense, good bye.