The science of God, or, the God of science

[Narz]

It's a nice story about how some people use God for profit and some to give back to their communities.

It could also work without God tho. People do good and do evil with or without him.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Seems to be a point being missed. That wasn't meant as "there's good churches and bad churches." The point is that in a conversation that was really not likely to happen at all in the first place, which had every reason to be nothing more than "here," "yeah, thanks," reasons for not going to church that I had held for over a decade were just...demolished...in a minute flat. I wasn't there looking for a good church. On their side, yes, they were "doing outreach" while selling fireworks but there are very good reasons that outreach to me could have, and really should have, been: quick invite, thanks, next case. For the conversation to take the turns it did...

It's really hard, especially through limited media, to explain how...weird...that conversation was. For @bernie14 in particular...I understand completely how you are seeing it and your response is totally reasonable...but still from where I stand incorrect. Again, I'm a gambler. I understand that probability allows for outrageous results like the dealer getting twelve blackjacks in a row...but I also understand that that probability is so low that it's worth checking him for cheating if he does. I can, and have, written off a lot of stuff to "what a coincidence." But some things are so improbable that even though they certainly could "just happen" you have to check the dealer...and that conversation was one of them. I was directed to that church.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The longest recorded streak of one color in roulette in American casino history happened in 1943 when the color red won 32 consecutive times. In a row.

That's a probability of 1,0021362196277916045358780081143e-10

Does that mean God was playing the roulette that day?

 

[abradley]

It's a nice story about how some people use God for profit and some to give back to their communities.

It could also work without God tho. People do good and do evil with or without him.

Yes, that's true. But take an example like at Jesus's time, it was pure brutal, compassion was a weakness, then Christianity arrived and in 300 years Christianity had conquered the Roman world, not by winning battles, rather by preaching, and setting a good example. What do I mean by setting a good example; one example was when a town was plague infested it had been the custom that everybody shunned the sick, put them into the streets leaving them to their own resources. The Christians didn't do that, they cared for all the sick and many who would have died recovered.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, that's true. But take an example like at Jesus's time, it was pure brutal, compassion was a weakness, then Christianity arrived and in 300 years Christianity had conquered the Roman world, not by winning battles, rather by preaching, and setting a good example. What do I mean by setting a good example; one example was when a town was plague infested it had been the custom that everybody shunned the sick, put them into the streets leaving them to their own resources. The Christians didn't do that, they cared for all the sick and many who would have died recovered.

Wasn't the conversion of Constantine the reason Christianity was allowed to grow in popularity?

So, not by winning battles, not by preaching, not by setting a good example, but because of a vision of a cross during a battle which made Constantine convert.

 

[Estebonrober]

The longest recorded streak of one color in roulette in American casino history happened in 1943 when the color red won 32 consecutive times. In a row.

That's a probability of 1,0021362196277916045358780081143e-10

Does that mean God was playing the roulette that day?

Considering those odds, probably?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Seems to be a point being missed. That wasn't meant as "there's good churches and bad churches." The point is that in a conversation that was really not likely to happen at all in the first place, which had every reason to be nothing more than "here," "yeah, thanks," reasons for not going to church that I had held for over a decade were just...demolished...in a minute flat. I wasn't there looking for a good church. On their side, yes, they were "doing outreach" while selling fireworks but there are very good reasons that outreach to me could have, and really should have, been: quick invite, thanks, next case. For the conversation to take the turns it did...

It's really hard, especially through limited media, to explain how...weird...that conversation was. For @bernie14 in particular...I understand completely how you are seeing it and your response is totally reasonable...but still from where I stand incorrect. Again, I'm a gambler. I understand that probability allows for outrageous results like the dealer getting twelve blackjacks in a row...but I also understand that that probability is so low that it's worth checking him for cheating if he does. I can, and have, written off a lot of stuff to "what a coincidence." But some things are so improbable that even though they certainly could "just happen" you have to check the dealer...and that conversation was one of them. I was directed to that church.

How is it anymore unlikely than, for example, bumping into an old friend who you haven't seen for years in another town/country that you both happen to to be visiting on the same day, in the same exact area? I've had that happen to me and didn't attach any significance to it. If I'd approached that with your mindset I could have interpreted that as God telling me that this was a good friendship I should rekindle (or something) couldn't I?

I'm just saying that how you interpret events like that surely depends as much on the mindset you're bringing with you as it does with the events themselves. If you weren't on at least some level looking or waiting for some sort of message from God, you would have been unlikely to interpret that meeting in that way.

I'm sure you'd say (and I'd probably agree) that you have to be listening for God in order to hear him/her/it in the first place, but is the opposite not also true? That if you're actively looking for some sort of "sign" then you're at least somewhat likely to see one in a mere coincidence?

 

[El_Machinae]

People love lots of things. God tortured Job because. Every single life is tragedy. It's not just Job. I don't need the book which contains the instructor you reference to look around for those observations. But, I need to reconcile them if I want to follow the instructor. Sooner or later, then always and again until.

I don't disagree that we need to reconcile reality with the god. But given how the book has caused people to become confused about God, it's a pretty big leap of faith about the book to think that it's holy.

In some ways, the Bible is one of the greatest pranks against God. If the devil wrote it, he caused a bunch of good intentioned people to spread lies about the Creator.

I like the idea of describing the Bible as man's attempt to understand God. It's important. It contains many insights, and many attempts to build insights. But it gets a lot of things wrong. Other people get offended when I attack the Bible, even if I'm defending God in the process. It's hard to believe that the Christian message of loving God has been internalized by the flock.

Can you think of another example where a reporter is spreading vicious lies about a loved one, and people get upset at the person who points out that the reporter makes obvious and egregious errors how about your loved one?

My church taught me that God tortured peasants in order to change the mind of their Pharaoh tyrant. I left the church after I became apostate. And they are teaching their children these lies about God still.

 

[Farm Boy]

If God is the God that presides over love, God is also the God of torture and murder. There is no power to be had, only what to do. By all observation, the world is vicious. It's more vicious the more we focus on ourselves, enlightened about it or not. It's sadder the more we reside in ourselves, enlightened about it or not. We can seek to be these ways less, but it remains vicious nonetheless. It is with Christians. It is with members of different faiths. It is with those of no faith. People will ensure that it is regardless of creed, and there is always a creed, avowed or not. Maybe the difference is in what you seek to describe as holy. It certainly is, meanness and all. It certainly is, disavowals of its own meanness and otherwise all-encompassing basal cruelty and indifference. I have relatively little respect for "going it alone" be it in faith, or lack thereof, or in interpretation of holy texts, or worship. Fundamentally, we're always alone with ourselves. Where we rank that import seems to be rather a lot of the point.

 

[abradley]

Wasn't the conversion of Constantine the reason Christianity was allowed to grow in popularity?

So, not by winning battles, not by preaching, not by setting a good example, but because of a vision of a cross during a battle which made Constantine convert.

Well, yes and no, or maybe. It depends on your meaning of "... Christianity was allowed to grow in popularity?". According to ' Rodney Stark in his
The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion, Kindle Edition – October 25, 2011

https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Chri...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1320705111&sr=8-1'
Of the 60 million Romans who were 50% christian already. But yes he did give them free reign. How did they become 50% 0f the population?

 

[rah]

Since my concept of God is something greater that us that we don't understand, I'm willing to delegate science to those things that we've figured out. We now know more science than we ever have, but are no closer to understanding God.

 

[Narz]

Seems to be a point being missed. That wasn't meant as "there's good churches and bad churches." The point is that in a conversation that was really not likely to happen at all in the first place, which had every reason to be nothing more than "here," "yeah, thanks," reasons for not going to church that I had held for over a decade were just...demolished...in a minute flat. I wasn't there looking for a good church. On their side, yes, they were "doing outreach" while selling fireworks but there are very good reasons that outreach to me could have, and really should have, been: quick invite, thanks, next case. For the conversation to take the turns it did...

It's really hard, especially through limited media, to explain how...weird...that conversation was. For @bernie14 in particular...I understand completely how you are seeing it and your response is totally reasonable...but still from where I stand incorrect. Again, I'm a gambler. I understand that probability allows for outrageous results like the dealer getting twelve blackjacks in a row...but I also understand that that probability is so low that it's worth checking him for cheating if he does. I can, and have, written off a lot of stuff to "what a coincidence." But some things are so improbable that even though they certainly could "just happen" you have to check the dealer...and that conversation was one of them. I was directed to that church.

When we're disappointed we want to be wrong (for instance if someone is wronged by a mate they might say "all men/women are ****" but deep down they want to be proven wrong). Maybe consciously you weren't looking for someone to show you not all church leaders were hucksters but you subconsciously you might've been.

Many people who do tabellng & ostentatious good works in the community are religious.

The story doesn't really strike me as all that unusual. or bizarre.

This type of thinking had a happy ending for you but for many people seeking God in the improbable is dangerous, leading to gambling, faith in impossible outcomes and even suicide when God doesn't show up to tilt the table in their favor (this is based on personal experience with a friend who was obsessed with "breaking the universal laws" and finding God).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The longest recorded streak of one color in roulette in American casino history happened in 1943 when the color red won 32 consecutive times. In a row.

That's a probability of 1,0021362196277916045358780081143e-10

Does that mean God was playing the roulette that day?

I'm actually surprised the record streak is only 32. Feel free to do the math on 12 blackjacks in a row. Assume a six deck shoe. Get back to me.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Two things seem to be at work here and I’m not sure there is any overlap. One is Tim’s version of god and the other is the biblical version of god.

Tim’s seeking may involve Christian churches, but I am not convinced that he is actually Christian or even subscribes to a Christian viewpoint. I’m gathering that his experiences provided entry points into spirituality that happened to be Christian.

I suspect there are more layers here than we think. As always, if one changes how one defines god, not only does the discussion change; but so does the nature of god’s conversation with Tim.

Coincidence is often the unbeliever label for what a believer calls obvious and expected.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Two things seem to be at work here and I’m not sure there is any overlap. One is Tim’s version of god and the other is the biblical version of god.

Tim’s seeking may involve Christian churches, but I am not convinced that he is actually Christian or even subscribes to a Christian viewpoint. I’m gathering that his experiences provided entry points into spirituality that happened to be Christian.

I suspect there are more layers here than we think. As always, if one changes how one defines god, not only does the discussion change; but so does the nature of god’s conversation with Tim.

Coincidence is often the unbeliever label for what a believer calls obvious and expected.

I'm Christian enough. I just think that the same God speaking to different people leads to language problems as they in turn try to explain what has happened. "The biblical version of god" is a function of who God communicated with and their language, not any multiplicity of gods, near as I can make out. I "participate in a fellowship of believers." It is another direction that is pretty clearly common to anyone who has heard from God, though again there are a whole gamut of translations. I don't have to state things in the same language as those who I fellowship with, and frequently don't, but we work it out and find the common roots. We never seem to lack for help.

Meanwhile...

I am puzzled a bit by the "you were looking for a church so of course you heard direction to a church" that some of you seem committed to. I understand the theory, and that it is certainly comforting. But what evidence supports the idea I was looking for a church? My prior experiences with "belonging" to churches were both bad. I hadn't been a church member in decades, and was quite content with that. I had explored numerous churches/places without any need to join, or even identify myself, and while some offered better...acoustics...than others I felt no need to get involved with any and was very content to say "God can come to my house, I don't need to go to his."

In many respects, while I am extremely grateful for my church family, having such does seriously cramp my lifelong style. Following the direction to join this church approximately quadrupled the number of people in my life who I allow claims on my time. That is far from something I was looking to do. Despite being personally convinced of the instruction and the source, I resisted for a number of weeks before I actually showed up.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm actually surprised the record streak is only 32. Feel free to do the math on 12 blackjacks in a row. Assume a six deck shoe. Get back to me.

Feel free to explain how god was involved in that low probability event.

Because it's close minded to dismiss it as coincidence. Or so I have been told.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You're mixing up belief and theory. A scientist tests a theory and accepts the results whether proven true or not. A religious belief is not a theory and anything that discredits that belief will be discredited, ignored or explained away. It's working backwards to prove a belief is correct. Just look at all the explanations used by young earthers to explain the fossil records and geological formations. They have a belief and try to formulate explanations for things that couldn't possibly fit in their belief system.

both statements are different shades of true. a scientist always is emotionally invested in his field, he is always curious (or at least should be) and he, definitely, asserts some sort of validity to a theory before testing it out. no scientist tests out ANY random theory, he always has to JUSTIFY why he is researching one thing over another, using one method over another, one experiment over the other, one citation over the other.

besides, all theories start from the gut anyway. they're patterns we recognize and instantly see as meaningful, as opposed to the other billions patterns we do recognize, but don't think have scientific validity. that gut feeling arrives in our conscious mind as an idea, and that idea is then hardened into a theory by corroboration, thinking, discussing. a theory does not come from evidence, it most always comes from data. the data itself is then later declared to be evidence, but only when the theory checks out. a theory doesn't start with causation, it usually starts with correlation. it is precisely a LEAP OF FAITH.

science most definitely has a non-rational (gut feelings, intuitions), an emotive (relationship to field of study, curiosity, creativity) and a subjective (language, culture, intersubjectivity etc.) foundation. @uppi , imo, was mostly right with his assertions, though I do not know if he would agree with mine.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

And this is the expected part where someone lectures @uppi about what scientists really do. I love this part.

The goal of science is to find the first principles of the world, after which no more experiments need be done; all will be just deduction afterwards, just like mathematics.

..no.

just no.

Uh, no. First, having no preconceived notion is an illusion. Second, people will try to explain away evidence that goes against their pet theory. Third, evidence is rarely as clear cut as you think, so it usually leaves a lot of wiggle room. Scientist are not some kind of rational superhumans, but their personal convictions, worldview and feuds do play a role. And then the inevitable politics come on top of that.

The beliefs may not be held as deeply as some religious beliefs, but the difference is in degree and not anything fundamental.



I am going to quote Max Planck on that:

hard agree on everything here

I'm curious @uppi how true that Planck quote really is? Do scientists really have positions that entrenched as a common thing?

the more he or she is passionate, the more he or she is active as a scientist, the more he or she is respected and established in the scientific community, the more entrenched scientists become

Cool, except I never said they have no preconceived notion. Only that someone with a theory not based on theological belief is more likely to accept evidence than one who based their theory on theology.

yeah but this is a pretty useless statement, probably no one will deny it, we haven't really gained anything.

the question is rather what do OBJECTIVE scientists base their theory on, before they start investigating it? and the answer is, of course, something based in their SUBJECTIVE experience, i.e. them reading a book, making an observation, having a eureka moment, scrolling through data, whatever.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

#

The commonalities Tim is talking about are similar to Jungian archetypes. The universal patterns which appeared in different cultures independently and are believed to be the features of our collective unconscious. "God" is among known archetypes too. It seems that some form of belief in supernatural may be a part of "human nature", essential feature of our mind. May be this feature is a product of evolution, because it somehow helped humans to survive?

or rather, instead of trying to biologize everything, maybe those Jungian archetypes are actually cultural in nature, and that is why we see them in almost every culture and in almost every religion? seems to be a far easier and more succint explanation. today we probably wouldn't talk about it in Jungian subconscious terms but rather something like collective memory, but it's a similiar idea anyway, isn't it?

I don't like asserting things like these to """"human nature"""" because who the hell knows whether our monkey-relatives were also worshipping god(s), but we do know for a fact that almost every high culture that emerged has had some kind of religion / mysticism.

culture is mostly just mimetics with a minimal degree of innovation. mimetics is the reason why there are so many historical people that are remarkably similiar to jesus, are the reason why so many elements of Sumerian and Babylonian faith are now Christian, why so many elements of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics are now seen as "christian values", mimetics is the reason why there are so many Flood archetype stories (and, of course, the existance of floods is one reason ).

 

[red_elk]

or rather, instead of trying to biologize everything, maybe those Jungian archetypes are actually cultural in nature, and that is why we see them in almost every culture and in almost every religion? seems to be a far easier and more succint explanation. today we probably wouldn't talk about it in Jungian subconscious terms but rather something like collective memory, but it's a similiar idea anyway, isn't it?

It's hard to argue about Jungian archetypes with Carl Jung himself
If they are cultural by nature, they must be part of very old, "prehistoric" culture. Common for our ancestors before they spread across the globe. I think it's possible, but biological/evolutional explanation is also valid IMO.

culture is mostly just mimetics with a minimal degree of innovation. mimetics is the reason why there are so many historical people that are remarkably similiar to jesus, are the reason why so many elements of Sumerian and Babylonian faith are now Christian, why so many elements of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics are now seen as "christian values", mimetics is the reason why there are so many Flood archetype stories (and, of course, the existance of floods is one reason ).

Yes, of course the cultures which frequently contact each other also adopt lots of things from each other.