[retsoksirhc]

I believe in science. That isn't to say I don't believe in god.

The second law of thermaldynamics basically says that without intervention from someone outside our world, our world itself would move toward a state of "equilibrium," or basically that things don't become more organized over time by themselves (i.e, evolution). This is called Entropy.

Unfortunately, the second law of thermal dynamics also states that this only works on a macroscopic scale (i.e, the entire universe). Microscopically (with just 2 molocules,) this can be disproved by the fact that a slow moving molocule can collide with a faster one, and their speeds won't necessarily both move toward a central, more equal speed.

While it is a stretch to say that the same could happen for somthing as big as an entire planet, it is still possible.

So thermaldynamics still says there can be a god, it just doesn't say anything about the Christian God.

Did anyone else notice that I said thermaldynamics? What the hell is wrong with me? I need my coffee...

[shatteredsoul]

Politics and religion seem to spark a debate even in the most shy person. I think its great and I too don't take it personally. Why not take personal responsibility in being a loving and kind person? It doesn't take anything more than choosing it to make a difference. NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

[mountain_man]

Politics and religion seem to spark a debate even in the most shy person. I think its great and I too don't take it personally. Why not take personal responsibility in being a loving and kind person? It doesn't take anything more than choosing it to make a difference. NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!

Right on!

[ordinaryguy]

"Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words. It’s words all day through, First from him, now from you. Is that all you blighters can do?" Eliza Doolittle—My Fair Lady

I can't believe I read the whole thread. It strikes me that a lot of misunderstanding about these matters arises because the same words mean different things to different people. For example:

I am saying the faith is very abstract and not at all logical or proveable but Atheists have mountains of it b/c they unquestionably, in complete confidence, and with extreme loyalty believe God doesn't exist??

Implication: Faith is a prerequisite and precursor to all belief in anything whatsoever.
And:

Atheists don't require mountains of faith, why are you making stuff up?

Implication: Faith and belief are just two different words for the same thing, and atheists don't have or need it.

I just love word etymologies. Learning the history of a word's origins and evolution of meaning has often led me to "Aha!" moments. Here are some (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) that seem relevant to the discussion.

believe
O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. But now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.

faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. Feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. Pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885

I think TKR makes an important point here:

Science and religious teachings are methods of explaining, to each his own.

explanation
1382, from L. explanationem noun of action from explanare "to make plain or clear, explain," lit. "make level, flatten," from ex- "out" + planus "flat" (see plane (1)). Originally explane, spelling altered by infl. Of plain. The verb explain is first attested 1513.

I think science and religion are just two different ways to "flatten" the multidimensional complexity of human experience, life, thought and emotion. But in either case, the "explanation" is something less than what is explained, because its dimensionality is reduced, approximations and simplifications are made, and peripheral factors are ignored. All of which is necessary to make it "flat enough" for the rational mind to grasp. The arguments arise over the relative satisfactory-ness of alternative explanations. Every explanation is a story. Whether the story is a "good explanation" is in the ear of the hearer.

It's funny, in discussions between theists and atheists, my sympathies more often than not lean toward the atheist's side. But the radical anti-religionists (Richard Dawkins and his ilk) irritate me just as much as the radical religionists. I recently came across a coinage that seems more like what feels right to me: apatheist (Apatheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; The Church of Apatheism), i.e. someone who doesn't think the question of God's existence is interesting enough to even think about.

A lot of scientist-types who are often accused of being atheists would be more accurately termed apatheists, I think, because they realize that the scientific method is just not the right tool for the job of "explaining" subjective states of consciousness. Of course, there are adherents of what I would call scientism who maintain the scientific method is the right tool for every job, and that there is no reason, in principle, why it can't eventually solve every riddle and provide an overwhelmingly persuasive explanation for anything whatsoever, objective or subjective, physical or ethereal. As, for example...

But science can explain feelings, we can monitor them on a MRI scan, we can tell if people are lying because of their emotional states, we can go "ping, yeah i reckon he's happy", maybe not very accurately, but technology is getting better all the time. Feelings are measureable and they exist. Time is measureable and it exists. What we feel when there's a sunset is measurable and it exists. God is not measurable except as a personal feeling or thought, and that's exactly what i believe he is, he's not physical, he's your way of dealing with the world and he's within you, he's personal to you.

My response is, "Well, not exactly." What can be measured is the level of bio-electro-chemical activity in particular areas of the organ we call the brain. We can correlate these measurements to what subjects say they were feeling at the time, but that's not quite the same as measuring feelings, is it? And even if we know what part of the brain is active when we have certain feelings, does that constitute an "explanation" of feelings? It does "flatten" them a bit, I guess, but not flat enough to be very satisfactory my mind, at least.

Another etymology:
evident
1382, from L. evidentem (nom. Evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious," from ex- "fully, out of" + videntem (nom. videns), prp. Of videre "to see" (see vision). Evidence (c.1300) is L.L. evidentia "proof," originally "distinction." After c.1500 it began to oust witness in legal senses.

In other words, evidence is something "seen outside" of our subjective consciousness, so the whole concept of "evidence" of subjective states of mind and emotion is really an oxymoron. Seeing an MRI picture of my brain activity can be "evidence" of my subjective state to someone else, but not to me. To me, it's a byproduct, not a cause or an explanation.

Great thread! Comments? Responses?

[startover22]

My comment would be... It is OK to feel and believe different things. We could be talking about poop and someone would get it all wrong in my eyes... I would get it all wrong in theirs.
I do believe that we all have a something, some just don't want to name it God. Some people call it a gut feeling, karma, a miracle maybe.. Good, let it be as you want it too. You have that right as far as I am concern...

[Capuchin]

Ordinary guy, I am aware that right now we are loosely correlating, but that's how science works. Newton loosely correlated the laws of motion when he first started. I see no barrier in the future to having a better machine with more correlation, until we are at a point where we can read thoughts and feelings as accurately as we can measure a heartbeat.

A simple experiment would show whether feelings are caused by brain activity in certain areas or whether the chemicals are a result of emotion. Work out where someone's happy center is and cut it out, and see if they are ever happy again.
Of course. There are certain real world barriers to such an experiment, which is what makes part of exploring the brain a mystery until technology progresses to a point where we don't need to cut people up. (maybe we can find a way to just "switch it off". I believe that this kind of thing is being done recently, and is obviously ongoing).

[firmbeliever]

Believe
O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. But now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.

Faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. Feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. Pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885

Thank you OrdinaryGuy for your very different thoughts on my question-

I "hold dear" my "duty of fulfilling my trust" to the Creator (as I believe) of the universe and beyond.
Now that sounds beautiful and it makes sense too.
We like to hold dear what we believe to be the truth,and we like to fulfill our trusts to the best we can...

[shatteredsoul]

What about intuition and de ja vu? I know they exist, because I have experienced both. How do you explain a mother sensing that something is wrong with her child? Or when you visit a place you have never been, or meet someone you have never met and you know you have been there or seen them before? You could chalk it up to coincidence, but I think intuition or a gut feeling , is something that no one can explain. Do we need a scientific theory to say that also exists? How does the brain and the body pick up on other people's energy, or when danger is approaching? Machines that can read thoughts, detect emotions, or explain what activity is going on, don't explain where we get the ability to have it. They just show how the body and brain operate and look while having an emotion or feeling. That doesn't explain the origin or why those things exist. Why do we have emotions at all? Why have feelings? Why have opinions? Yes we can evaluate them, but science cannot explain why or where they come from.

[NeedKarma]

So how can you explain it then?

[firmbeliever]

NK, Are you asking me or shatteredsoul?

[NeedKarma]

Shattered. Sorry about that.

[mountain_man]

So how can you explain it then?

She may be saying you can't scientifically explain any of them so to a person who holds true to only proveable things, those things don't exist.

[mountain_man]

Sorry I just assummed Shattered is a woman... sorry if you are not!!

[NeedKarma]

Agreed. But they are not explained by any other methods as well. Man is a complicated animal.

[mountain_man]

No but we all believe they exist?

[Capuchin]

déjà vu is generally believed in science to be a case of faulty memory, our brain tells us that the experience we are seeing is being recalled rather than being seen for the first time. It really is a marvel, considering the complexity of the brain, that more of us don't have much bigger memory anomalies than this.

As for intuition, it can be explained as knowledge that you have from previous experiences that can be immediately applied to the problem, and thus needs very little thought.

[firmbeliever]

As I have said I asked this question not to argue but out of curiosity I too have my ideas on this topic but I am waiting until I am really ready to jump into this conversation...

[shatteredsoul]

I am a woman, and a hot one at that!! But that is besides the point. LOL My point was, everyone cannot explain everything. Life is a mystery, as are we. Scientists cannot explain it all, therefore it is our beliefs that lead us. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that scientists don't have all the answers because quite frankly, they are human too. ( I was referring to the post about how we can detect where feelings and emotions come from.)

[NeedKarma]

Intuition I believe in, it's a combination of life experiences. Déjà-vu is up for discussion (link). But I certainly agree that we have emotions, feelings and opinions, who would disagree with that?

[NeedKarma]

As I have said I asked this question not to argue but out of curiosity I too have my ideas on this topic but I am waiting until I am really ready to jump into this conversation...

There have been 200 posts, what are you waiting for??