Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

I love that pirsig quote; but he's talking about quality, not god. You can't equate that with your average christian who believes in Jehova. Or your average muslim who believes in Allah.

Please do not confuse a debate about the existence of god with a debate about whether or not reality has anything at all mysterious about it.

Please do not confuse an atheist for someone who is not as much in touch with the wordless Tao as any sage.

I reject nothing that Pirsig says; I embrace the concept of quality. I simply am not tricked into thinking that when people typically talk about god, they are talking about quality.

And if they are, they are atheists to christianity, judaism, and islam.

So I don't accept when someone tells me "im a christian" and then describes a god that is beautiful and poetic, and much appealing to intuition; because that god is not found in the bible, and that is not the god that the most powerful portions of christendom pray to.

Do not confuse an unwillingness to be credible to claims of textual divinity with a blindness to the inherent divinity in every quanta of space, time, matter, energy, and thought.

Do not mistake my reticence towards anything titled "religion" with a blindspot when it comes to the inside out mystery of Everything.

Do not for a second derail this thread into an insinuation that what I am arguing against is the manifest splendor of the cosmos; the cosmos is what it's all about.

I am arguing against constructing mental entities which bear no existence in the world and then pointing to them and saying "That, that is what it's all about. That right there. That's what I go to church for, and your life is meaningless unless you have that species of mental imaginings in your mind and offer to it the entirety of your devotion and attribute to it the entirety of all that's good. But not the bad stuff; you don't understand god; he works in mysterious ways".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwac6Uk-zyk

Dope, there are lots of accountings for why religion exists, and why it is so popular. None of the accountings are that the religion is true; they are all variants of psychological drives and social needs. pretty utilitarian stuff. People believe in god because its nice to imagine a Cosmic Father who will make it all ok. People believe in belief in God because they think that its good to be kept in check by belief in a Cosmic Father.

 

The answer to the OP question is very simple. THERE IS NO ROOM IN SCIENCE FOR ANYTHING THAT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC! Period, end of discussion. This thread is 14 pages of wasted energy and bullshit, and only goes to show how screwed up and clueless most people are about science. Science is constantly being perverted and corrupted to suit religious and other shady agendas. It is a real problem that hinders the progress of real science and knowledge and everything that wold benefit from it. Scientists can and do have beliefs outside of their science work, this is fine as long as as it does not effect and corrupt their scientific work.

 

Well sir that is patently not true. I am an example of one who counts christ teaching as true having kept and understood the sayings and seeing the results. On this evidence it is obvious you could learn something. Of course you could say that all activities of man amount to attempts to fill physiological, psychological, and social needs. That just portrays us a pretty needy.
The truth sets you free is a saying attributed to jesus. Buddha taught the elimination of ignorance.

You are hung up in two areas. One is on the substance of faith/worship and the other the definition of god. You don't understand either one yet you rant that things should be defined the way you want them. There is no solution for you maintaining your current position so you can let go of the pretense that you are desperately seeking to understand while you in fact scoff. The only thing that will lend to your understanding is sincerity in seeking. Some measure of honest skepticism concerning your own take on things, i.e. Since religion is all bullshit it's not true. You don't think bullshit because religion lacks truth, you think religion is bullshit and therefor can't be true.

On worship,
My experience is that "worshipful" space comes from being genuinely awe inspired, it's you standing there thinking wow. That is the level of praise that attends being present to the light. What we commonly associate as worship, assemblage in a church, is commitment to habit in an effort to be good, to conform to a proper respect. It may lighten your mood but it is not the same as being in the presence of.

On faith,
Faith at the level of belief in some specific form is not required or helpful.
Faith at the level of trust that there is something to discover is essential.
Seek and you will find.
What you discover are the rewards of that faith,
Faith without works or believing for the sake of believing is useless for anything except day dreaming.

There is no question of essential devotion. We are all hard wired to seek our good and where our treasure is, where and what we deem just and valuable, is where our devotion or heart is.

 

What is scientific?

You have no idea whether the way I apply myself is wasted or not If you are going to speak for science don't forget accurate accounting and reason, you freaking zealous thought nazi. sieg hiel!

Ahhh, terms of endearment.

 

kinda what I've been saying.

 

Here's a fucking debate:
Science vs God - Does Science Refute God?
https://youtu.be/HJWbvvKltDE

Is God scientific, is not even in question here. Even the theist here agrees that God is not scientific (~20:52).

 

You are not doing too good in this one so you call in the mercenaries?

What is your argument, god is not real or not scientific?

 

The subtlety here is whether we are having this debate to see whether God can be part of Science or if we are having this debate because if we determine that God can't be part of Science then that must mean God isn't real, and if it can be part of Science then it means God is real? If it's the latter, then this is a flawed debate.

 

You're basically describing Hermetic Mentalism...which states that The All is Mind. This is also what is being pointed to in The Self Aware Universe. The Universe is a giant self-aware Mind...which also means that all matter in all areas of the Cosmos has Consciousness.

If all is Mind, then Consciousness plays a major role in co-creating reality with the use of thought.

This is Magick. just fyi

 

We are having the debate to answer the thread question and discuss leftover baggage from several other threads.

 

We all still have our own individual minds. You're saying the same thing as "well if it's all One, then how can i as an ego exist?"...Oneness doesn't destroy separation, it just liberates it.

Magick can be used for selfish control of power reasons or it can be used for genuine reasons to express your True Will and godliness as a human. In a similar light, a knife can be used for great or for ill purposes, depending on whether it is a killer or a chef that's using it. Magick is the same.

 

The flaw of the quote you posted is that "matter is devoid of consciousness"...if all is Mind, then all matter would also be Mind, and would have Consciousness.

 

What we can say is that we deal with the world through thought/sense. It is the very nature of self aware consciousness. That is not the same as saying thoughts create what we see, they place limits on what we will deal with or perceive. Most profoundly with each other that we may have some order to a conversation.

 

I like how that term godliness just sort of snuck into your vocabulary there. I guess to somehow relate it to the subject of god at some level. However power is only attractive to the weak. Magick is not an expression of godliness as I suggested, it is the effort of one who wants to be perfected in some sense and it in fact psychologically denigrates the power of the inherent miraculous machinery of the mind, it already attending perfectly to your will. Magick an expression of true will? More like the expression of transient desire inspired by a lack of satisfaction in the moment. There is nothing weak about the will. Just see how vigorously you would fight to stay alive in a desperate situation. What is weak is our apprehension of the world and thus our natural reactions to it and seemingly well considered actions toward it.

 

Is magick the same as magic? Because I'm all for magic.

Science is power. It can't help it. It's just the truth, and the truth controls everything. If magick is real, it's science. It can't help that it's powerful and people shouldn't shy away from it just because it grants them power any more than we should all stop using computers because they've granted us a huge voice, which is also power.

 

Perhaps god can't be part of science because science has no tools to weigh the abstract making no determination of it's reality. The scientist does have the tools however, his own mind being naturally abstract. i can't say it enough, job number one for the scientist in the broadest sense of the word is know thyself. It is through the self that all of our analytic runs. Having said that any technician can perform a science experiment in a laboratory.

 

Is something scientific if it can't be directly related? Perhaps God can't be directly related, but neither can one's own personal experience. Yet we all agree one's own personal experience is real. However is one's own personal experience scientific then?

If not, then we place too much importance on something being scientific. If not, it really doesn't matter if God is scientific, because we know that something real and important exists that is not scientific, our own subjective experience.

 

Actually I've heard accounts or descriptions that I can identify with or recognize as congruous with my own.. Although our minds appear separate we share our thoughts