[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I can appreciate the necessity to carefully word everything, because this is a science forum. However, I am a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces, without saying this a point of view or a possibility every time, and it is not wrong to say, God doesn't exist- as a matter of fact?

What exactly is the point in calling nature anything but nature? There in no ambiguity in this. The definition of nature is universally agreed on. "God" on the other hand is defined differently all over the world with few agreeing on a definition. Is it your point to needlessly introduce confusion into discussions of nature just for the fun of introducing confusion? Why use such a poor term to talk about nature when we already have a well defined term for that purpose?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Science is done by humans. Humans ability to do anything involved their brains’ limbic systems, brain structures associated with strong emotions and motivation. By associating activities such as the scientific study of nature with strong emotions such as reverence and awe, one strengthens their limbic reinforcers. Used properly, these feelings enhance the performance of science.

I hypothesize a positive correlation and causative link between limbic system activity and related neurochemistry and scientific competence and excellence.

That's quite a claim Craig! Do you know of any experimental evidence that points to such a claim?

In any case, what you are saying is quite different from what nutron has been saying, which led to this thread's creation.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by freeztar

That's quite a claim Craig! Do you know of any experimental evidence that points to such a claim?

In any case, what you are saying is quite different from what nutron has been saying, which led to this thread's creation.

Wouldn't this limbic response be universal among good scientist as well as artist or teachers ? A chemical feed back system of energy needed for extended study, The anticipation, and then the excitement that comes with learning, the possibility of discovery.
This is the same limbic system that drove and evolved within our ancestral hunter gathers, to follow the trail of a game animal , study its habits the anticipation of dispatching his quarry to take back to feed his family.

[InfiniteNow]

You guys should split the limbic discussion into its own thread and leave a link with redirect here (same applies to our permalink discussion we had earlier). This thread is about nutronjon's desire to whine about why she's being challenged when she states that god is the stuff of the universe, and to try to figure out why these challenges are occurring.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Of course you are right, when God is defined with specific particulars that allow experiments to be conducted.

But the simple statement "God exists" provides nothing specific to test.

Protestants believed that by studying nature they would learn of God. The following comes from the site for the book Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, The Environmental History. I am not emotionally attached to the subject, but post this information to bring up the past importance of science to Protestants, and to say I think it is a good idea to remind Protestants of their relationship with science.

Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, The | Environmental History | Find Articles at BNET
Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, The
Environmental History, Apr 1999 by Stoll, Mark
Harrison traces a number of implications of Protestant hermeneutics. Investigating nature as religious duty, Protestants used new instruments like the microscope and telescope to spy out fresh evidence of God's existence. Abandoning traditional allegorical understandings of the renewal of Eden, Protestants sought to reverse the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the Curse of Genesis 3, and the Flood; they attempted to replant Eden and relearn Adam's natural language lost at Babel. Harrison asserts that the ideology of the conquest of nature that White decried first arose with the Protestant project of restoring Eden by reviving mankind's lost dominion, which God had given to Adam and Noah.

Two problems weaken Harrison's argument in an otherwise strong case. His frequent French exemplars of various points (Pluche, Charron, Voltaire, Descartes, Reamur, and others) raise the question of how uniquely Protestant literalism was. If Protestant interest in the "historical" Eden led them to plant gardens, why did major botanical gardens appear all over Europe? Secondly, while Harrison has certainly shown how these issues affected English writers, a lack of Continental Protestant sources undermines his contention that these were broadly Protestant and not just English concerns. Finally, familiarity with Clarence Glacken's Traces on the Rhodian Shore (1967) might have influenced his understanding of classical origins, and led him to date the "two books" metaphor not to the twelfth century, but to John Chrysostom at the turn of the fourth. Harrison has written a very interesting addition to the literature about Protestants and science, one that expands our understanding of the history of science and of ideas about nature.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by C1ay

What exactly is the point in calling nature anything but nature? There in no ambiguity in this. The definition of nature is universally agreed on. "God" on the other hand is defined differently all over the world with few agreeing on a definition. Is it your point to needlessly introduce confusion into discussions of nature just for the fun of introducing confusion? Why use such a poor term to talk about nature when we already have a well defined term for that purpose?

So far the "Evidence for God from Science
God And Science.org" site seems to give the best argument for putting science and religion back together again. Now I have a serious problem with this site, because I am not Christian, however, I like the argument about our present problem and a need to correct it.

I would perfer a new religion such as Stuart Kauffman recommends of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe. I am strongly in favor of working on the fully natural God concept because it is the best way to end superstition and in general, poor human judgment, in my opinion, and the only way to put an end to religiously inflamed wars, that I can think of.

Another reason am I saying what I say, is the political aspect. I think we need a better understanding of the history of democracy, and therefore, the reasoning behind the most important principles, and our laws. The opposite to "reason is the controlling force of the universe", is that there is a supernatural being who does things by whim and makes everything happen. I am working with the Athenian concept of reason, logos, cause and effect, that started the sciences and brought an end to superstition, and I am really confused by the insistence on arguing against what I am saying.

Science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy and the difference is important to me. For me that doesn't mean denying the existence of God, but using science to understand nature and imply something about God (which brings in the human element of knowledge). The reason for earthquakes is sliding plates, the reason things fly is, air flow, and so on, the reason to declare adulthood begins at age 25 is based on brain science, and what goes with this is, an end to prosecuting children as adults, which is a Christian good and evil mentality that we should resist. As Cicero said better reasoning will lead to better laws, and because they are based on good reasoning, there will be universal agreement.

I couldn't decide what to copy and paste from the lengthy site, but science without moral principles is bad news. And the forefathers of the US who very strongly disagreed on religious issues, shared the opinion that religious moral training is essential to a strong and good nation. God becomes the human element of knowledge that is devoid in science. It is like Zeus feared, men have learn all technologies and now revival the Gods, and without the Gods, they are not wise and could destroy all of the creation that is important to humans.

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?

General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?
by Rich Deem
Introduction
Does everything have a natural cause?
Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

Rich Deem

This is the first part of a 2 part introduction to the evidence for belief in the God of Christianity. This first part considers what people believe and why. The main point is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong, in order to realistically examine the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This principle applies to both believers and skeptics alike. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult. The first occurred as an undergraduate at USC in the early 1970's, when I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), as a result of my perception that science had failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980's, when I determined that Jesus Christ was the God who created the universe and life in it. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong, and look directly at the evidence, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are even consistent with their own worldview.

Do skeptics have beliefs?
Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by CraigD
Science is done by humans. Humans ability to do anything involved their brains’ limbic systems, brain structures associated with strong emotions and motivation. By associating activities such as the scientific study of nature with strong emotions such as reverence and awe, one strengthens their limbic reinforcers. Used properly, these feelings enhance the performance of science.

I hypothesize a positive correlation and causative link between limbic system activity and related neurochemistry and scientific competence and excellence.

I wish I could word things as well as Craig, and hope the links I provided support what he has said.

What makes humans different from all the other animals, is not all the things we do, build bridges and sky scrapers, and tunnel under the earth, engage in gas warfare (skunks and stink bugs) etc., but that we can think about what think. We are as the gods because we can learn and we can reason, and we can create. Before you throw stones, this language is the language of civilization, not the language of science. Like we can't speak quantum physics without speaking of all the atomic particles, that may of may not exist, we don't speak of being civilized humans very well, without the language of the gods. These gods are astract concepts, not literal, supernatural beings, with supernatural powers. God, is a concept and that we can define however we want. I think it is better to use science to define the concept of god than mythoglogy without science, but also hold mythology has a very important place in human organizations. Mythology is what transitions youth to adulthood, and gives a culture a cohersive, moral foundation, that is vital to humanity. Science alone can not meet all our human needs.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Overdog

What INow said is right nutron.

It is NOT un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable does not exist, because it is a falsifiable hypothesis.

It IS un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable DOES exist, because this hypothesis is not falsifiable.

It is as simple as that.



Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Likewise the statement "God Exists" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether God does or does not exist.

If God exist or not, and therefore, can or can not be scientifically tested, depends on how we define God. Stoics, and Greeks who thought things were made of atoms, and later Spinoza and others, have said God is the stuff of the universe. A material God, that is a God of substance, can be scientifically tested. Now finding Zeus and his brothers and sisters is a different matter. I don't think we can scientifically prove supernatural beings exist. But we can study nature.

[freeztar]

Reading your recent posts, nutron, I get a better sense of what you are aiming for and you are doing a much better job of articulating yourself. I was beginning to think that you have simply been misunderstood and was trying to understand your ideas from this new perspective, and then you posted this:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

A material God, that is a God of substance, can be scientifically tested. Now finding Zeus and his brothers and sisters is a different matter. I don't think we can scientifically prove supernatural beings exist. But we can study nature.

At this point, I could re-post the challenges to this such as "How do we scientifically test for god?" or "What is the benefit of labeling nature 'God'?", but you obviously will not/can not answer these questions. It stops becoming a scientific examination of theology when you make claims such as "Finding Zeus...is a different matter" with respect to "a material god, a god of substance".

Zeus is a god. By studying Zeus, we can infer something about god nature.

I agree with you about morals and becoming a better society, but this insistence on relating *your* concept of god with nature is a big put off for me and most everyone else it seems.

Why can't we observe nature and learn something of democracy? If you started with that premise, it would be a very popular thread I think.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

So far the "Evidence for God from Science
God And Science.org" site seems to give the best argument for putting science and religion back together again. Now I have a serious problem with this site, because I am not Christian, however, I like the argument about our present problem and a need to correct it.

I would perfer a new religion such as Stuart Kauffman recommends of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe. I am strongly in favor of working on the fully natural God concept because it is the best way to end superstition and in general, poor human judgment, in my opinion, and the only way to put an end to religiously inflamed wars, that I can think of.

The only people you will sell this to are Pantheists and Panentheists. All of those which already define their God(s) differently are not going to just up and change their definition of the God(s) they believe in. This would be tantamount to converting them from whatever current belief(s) they hold to pantheism or panentheism. Christians for example are not going to just make a wholesale switch from their belief in the Holy Trinity to one that replaces it with nature. For them nature is nature and God is separate. Their God is one that can take the form of man and walk among us like Jesus and they believe in his second coming. Calling nature God is inconsistent with their belief at its core and simply introduces more friction in the discussion because many will be offended by the suggestion.

I think a more honest approach is reached in working on critical thinking and skepticism. People need to learn to question more of what they are told. They need to learn that belief does not mean knowledge. That mysticism and the supernatural are inventions of man to explain things man has no knowledge of by introducing fabricated beliefs that are unfounded in science.

For the most part your effort will go nowhere with the adult population either. Most are set in the beliefs that have been handed down to them. You might cause a doubt in their belief but not a wholesale conversion to panentheist belief. It is the children that must be taught to be more skeptical of hand me down beliefs. They also need more lessons in the core humanist beliefs to help set their moral compass. They need to learn that what is important is the search for true knowledge. That belief does not equal knowledge but serves instead as an obstacle to knowledge. In this vein giving nature a new name is silly word play that avoids the search for the truth.