romansh

I don't understand this question, and I already addressed this in my last post about the concept of incompatibility. I don't think that something being untestable makes it incompatible with science. Perhaps you do. If so, we're debating apples and oranges. OK let's break the question apart a bit. 1) Can you give some examples that are beyond [human] individual experience? 2) How do you know we have stuff beyond [individual] experience if it is beyond experience? Have you experienced this stuff beyond experience?

Remind me please ... how do we test stuff that is beyond human experience?

Here's my take John: When I started reading about myths and religions ... (Joseph Campbell in particular) I thought I could accept many of its aspects. I then I read Buddhism for Dummies. There were three core beliefs that all the various flavours Buddhism accepted. I can't find them now, but I recall I could buy into one of them. Dependent Origination (or Arising). The other two concepts (I remember) were beyond the pale for someone like me with a scientific background. Plus I found I was discarding much. Having said that ... google Stephen Batchelor, I think he will give a sensible interpretation of Buddhism as you will find. Jainism I am not overly familiar with. I could not give up my roast lamb to go with the roast potatoes. Definitely ... that is why I think we need a scientific mind to break up the complexity, understand it, and stitch it back together again. Understanding the whole without understanding the parts, can lead us astray. Having said that, there is no guarantee of not being led astray anyway. Reality can be experienced? Yes and no. Our experience will be always incomplete. Science provides tools to increase the diversity of experience.

Ok a really crappy surgeon will not particularly affect the outcome. I don't think I asserted that knowledge and skill were the only things that mattered. Not everyone can be saved from a terminal condition. Forgot to comment on this: It would seem spirituality is a slippery concept. The phrase something beyond human experience? If it truly is beyond experience then how do you even come to the conclusion it exists even as a concept? It is like free will ... we are taught that we have it, we think we experience it, and only on close examination of the subject either by inward examination or looking at the logic behind the concept do cracks appear in our belief. And finally being religious and being accepting of some science does not make them compatible. Do your compatible Baptist friends think God can be tested?

I agree ... I just wanted to clarify for the passerby as to some of the deeper nuances of your position.

Ahh but was your mind free not to take that drink of water?

You seriously believe this? You and I could treat the same symptoms ... On average the outcomes will be vastly different. Can you provide some examples please of which might be and which might not be; just to make sure we are on the same page

Have we ever tried using science trying to understand the "why" we have a desire for exploration? At best all you can accurately say science "has not".

In that case would you define spirituality for me please .... because it seems to mean different things to different people. Preferably on the ignosticism thread ... thanks. Yes I understand that the the universe is fundamentally chaotic. But would you not agree knowledge and skill are frequently proximate causes for positive outcomes? Here I find this as a semantic dodge. Trust and faith are not the same thing. Trust is based on reproducible experience. Faith (by definition) is based on very little experience. I don't have a clue ... I did not ask I did not get the sense he was. But if I thought for one moment he was relying on God's guidance and not his skill and knowledge I would have been very wary. I reminded of gentleman who makes a sign of a cross before driving ... did not instill confidence and neither did his driving. Luckily today an appendix is relatively simple ... through advances in skill and knowledge (technology and science). Almost killed my wife, to be, fifty years ago. But I understand Doctors have to juggle between an air of confidence and the stark reality of a chaotic universe. But knowledge is like a balloon. The volume represents what we have learnt and the surface what we don't know. You seem to dwell on the surface and not the volume. Science recognizes and celebrates that new understanding produces new questions and puzzles to solve. Science accepts the ultimate question to life, the universe and everything might not be answered. Where some religions seem to posit as an answer: an inexplicable entity to an unexplainable existence. If you think this is compatible with science ... fair enough. My wife is going to have laser eye surgery next month. Nice to know those guys are hated because of their skill and knowledge. Thank you Einstein for laying down the theoretical foundations a little over a century ago.

In a recent thread it was asked that "Has science made religion useless?" It is begs the question that religion has been useful. Having said that, it is like the question, has science made osmium useful? So today religion is used in a variety of ways. It is used to influence funding, politics and policies, for example. So by definition it is used today, therefore it is "useful". Are there more secular avenues of achieving similar aims? Sure. But in the environment of embedded religiosity in a community may not be that easy to implement. OK putting that aside. And yet they are beginning to do this. For example, volunteers have been monitored while attending a Cirque de Soleil performance and looking at the physiological responses during the moments of awe. Surely you mean not yet ... there was a scientist who claimed we will never know the composition of the sun, and yet the basic principles of how me might know had been laid down a few years before his bold claim. I could go through Kellerman's post point by point but that would be tediously long. But as to the point regarding facts and (un)knowability, I have some sympathy for this position as a devout agnostic. What is a fact? From my point of view it is a concept that has a lot of corroborating evidence and is held as provisionally true. I can't comment on whether what Kellerman was taught met those criteria. But the human body is almost unimaginably complex system, so all we can do ... is our best. And prayer or religion is far from it. A year ago, October, I had appendix (perforated) removed ... I relied not on god, spirituality or prayer. I relied on the surgical team's skill, training and 'knowledge'. Religion had NO place in my surgery. I mentioned the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document. (Wedge is the antithesis of religion). Their program was in effect religiously (trying to) undermining the scientific process. As to suggesting spiritual and religious being the same. Increasingly we see people suggesting they are not religious but they are spiritual. These people at least see a difference between the two. I like Joseph Campbell's observation: Religion turns poetry into prose

Paul Being and administrator on another forum ... www.agnosticsinternational.org I have some sense of the challenges of differing viewpoints and being a forum for people of all persuasions our motto by the way. I understand the need to protect sensitive souls so to speak. What might be a hard question of one person could very well be a viscous attack for another. Just skimming through the recent posts I noticed the reticence of some people to have their views challenged. Preferring to have a likeminded discussion. My point ... philosophically I play hard, but am a pussycat really. Paul ... thank you for taking on the administrative duties and Joseph for your past service.

I thought I'd give this a Bump ... oh yeah says Paul. I notice Kellerman is a research scientist and I wondered what his thoughts are on free will, from a scientific point of view ... noting that determinism, indeterminism or some combination rules.

The Discovery Institute undermined religion's claim to be compatible with science in the late 1990s. With the Wedge document. Also before we can reliably discuss whether religion is compatible with science, we should define religion a bit more carefully. A classic example the huge STEP study back in 2006 looked at the benefits of prayer on the outcome of a certain type of heart operation. The long and short of it three groups of people were in the study. People who were prayed for but did not know it People who were not prayed for People who knew they were being prayed for There was no difference for people in outcomes for the first two groups. BUT the outcome for the third group was worse (statistically). There are some who would argue God can't be tested. In this sense religion and science are not compatible. I apologize ... just noticed this is in the PC thread ... not supposed to post here.

Paul just suggested I pop by ... when I played here I was the resident staunch and devout agnostic. How do I perceive God? I don't, I suppose ... being an agnostic n' all. If I were to adopt some theism it would be a fairly 'cold' pantheism. I can't help thinking that any perception we may have of God is simply the universe unfolding.

Well this was sort of my point in the a/ignostic thread. Of course it is only an opinion that the Nazis who self identified as Christian are not Christian in actual fact. But I hope you see the contradiction in your two positions you have stated. Who is the censor that limits definitions? And more for Joseph than you Elen, if I were to express the opinion that may Germans had succumbed to a nonsense belief that Arians are somehow a master race and better than say Slavs or Jews, would that be inappropriate? After all it is just an opinion.

For some this is the end suffering … not seeing the world in duality/

Don't they get to define for themselves who they are?

This was likely true for the senior ranks … by and large And likely not true for the rank and file that carried out the orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany And of course Gott Mit Uns was on most German soldier belt buckles - regardless of denomination.

I get this Joseph. For me, calling a concept nonsense is being 'nice'. I think you may have pointed out reason alone won't persuade anyone. So from my point of view I am using the tools at hand. Whether it works or not is another matter. Also I think we have to consider bystanders who have not made up their minds. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, some opinions are just flat out wrong. I don't mean to offend and if I do offend anyone my apologies. But as you are likely well aware the responsibility feeling of offence lies not just with the offender but also with the offended.

Well this assumes God exists. I wanted to reply to this before I was away last week I'm not disagreeing with your experience here Joseph … I could argue I've had similar but my interpretations are different. Firstly, I think we need to be a little circumspect about how we interpret our experiences. I have given my example of the red kitchen chair. There are similar arguments around the experience of sound. I used to have (and I suppose I still do at times) a sense of free will. We both seem have come to a conclusion that this experience is an illusion. So we understand we don't necessarily take our experiences at face value. My god type experiences are more of awe than anything else. The few that I have had watching an organic compound crystallize between two slides in one of those old fashioned slide projectors. Repeating the experiment two days later for the class was also awe inspiring, more because of the class's reaction than anything else. Looking at a four-cell pre-zygote … a potential human being - down a microscope, was like looking at a reflection of the universe. These are just a couple. Now, Harris and Pollan have recommended psychedelics (now more commonly called entheogens) as a way of experiencing spirituality. Now I am not recommending this; but I do note that the indole ethylamines that form many of the entheogenic compounds are closely related to serotonin, melatonin, tryptophan, and other compounds that the body needs and does produce. I just wonder I f on occasion the body produces an entheogen as a byproduct, that gives us our experience of god or awe? So we are experiencing the universe for sure. Whether this is actually god, not so sure? My take.

Pain, beauty, grief, suffering etc are a product of the brain chemistry.

Which term?

Perhaps I will, but you are confounding must be quantifiable with can be quantifiable. And which of these are not written in grey matter?