patrick.net

deepcgi says

Still I agree with the above. Chances are low that "HE" exists. Chances are fairly low that I do, for that matter. Maybe you just collapsed my wave function and i'm here because of some sequence of conscious decisions? I'm a pain in the neck and it's all your fault. Way to go.

The only thing that I can know for sure is that I am experiencing some sort of conscious awareness.

Right I don't know if god(s) is/are real, if you are real, if my hands are real, etc.

However, within the framework of my experience there is evidence that my hands exist while there is absolutely no evidence that any deity described by man exists.

What is your point? I don't see why you think all your proposals on this thread would be difficult for an atheist.

What do you imagine the nature of atheism to be?

deepcgi says

What is God, though now? Intelligent occurance?

I can't think of a more loaded word in English than God. We can dispense with the word God and hope to have an intelligent discussion about Quantum Mechanics.

deepcgi says

That's where the collision of universal consciousness and determinism occurs. Is universal consciousness a definition of God?

Again without worrying about semantic definitions, what you are alluding to here is the mysterious nature of what we perceive as real. And I suppose the talk about "past" vs. "future" is related to the arrow of time.

deepcgi says

Chances are fairly low that I do, for that matter.

LOL, are you saying that the particle 'you' is not real, but the wave function 'you' is?

deepcgi says

The atheist Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no immortality, there can be no virtue, and all things are permissible." I think that is an honest statement.

Ummm... yes that was indeed something written by Dostoevsky in his book The Brothers Karamazov.

Just to liven things up here why don't we post the entire quote (emphasis mine):

"Rack your brains — you’ll understand it. His article is absurd and ridiculous. And did you hear his stupid theory just now: if there’s no immortality of the soul, then there’s no virtue, and everything is lawful. (And by the way, do you remember how your brother Mitya cried out: ‘I will remember!’) An attractive theory for scoundrels! — (I’m being abusive, that’s stupid.) Not for scoundrels, but for pedantic poseurs, ‘haunted by profound, unsolved doubts.’ He’s showing off, and what it all comes to is, ‘on the one hand we cannot but admit’ and ‘on the other it must be confessed!’ His whole theory is a fraud! Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity.’"

Hey deepcgi, we all know that you were showing off by quoting Dostoevsky, but are you also a "...pedantic poseurs, ‘haunted by profound, unsolved doubts.’" as suggested by Dostoevsky?

deepcgi says

You're just afraid to say you don't know. Scientists just can't do it. It's some disorder of the lips. I can say it in about eight languages (give or take). I don't know why it's so hard for them to say.

Nonsense. Scientists love not knowing, it gives them a challenge. They also enjoy finding out something is not the case, since that adds to their knowledge.

I know I don't know many things. There are things I don't know, and things I don't know that I don't know. However, on this subject, you also do not know. If you do know, and can prove it or even make it very plausible as an explanation, please submit your explanation to CalTech, MIT, or Brookhaven National Lab or any other educational or scientific institution.

It is possible, but not plausible (going by precedence) than this currently unexplained mechanism is ultimately unexplainable. I note the glee with which people grasp any unexplainable aspect of the universe as a place for their God of the Gaps can hide in.

thunderlips11 says

I note the glee with which people grasp any unexplainable aspect of the universe as a place for their God of the Gaps can hide in.

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. - Richard Feynman

If you can't see it, it isn't there? Hmm...a bad mantra to live by. Some predators are very sneaky.

Only an hour ago or so, i offered God to kiss my ass. Not exactly the glee of which you speak. I'll even do it again. God? Kiss my ass! And yet, I STILL think determinism is a phenomenon destined for books that chronicle history from before the 21st Century.

The unexplained mechanism of QP does have explanations - and determinists gleefully reject them. Consciousness preceeds chemistry. Unfortunately, more and more scientists are putting forth just such explanations to explain the delayed choice. The determinist naysayers are responding in semantics surrounding the relativity of time to defend the treasured cause-and-effect.

And i do speak with scientists active in this field - quite often. Forget people trying to find hiding places for deity. What really should be worrying you is that your own consciousness isn't made possible BY your physical brain and all of its billions of electrical impulses, but by quantum operations that occur at faster than Plank time. You may be a part of the "god" you reject, and we may have already executed the experiment that leads to that conclusion. That's enough of that, I'm sure.

deepcgi says

If you can't see it, it isn't there?

Who here said that?

If you think you understand Quantum mechanics, you don't understand Quantum mechanics . - Richard Feynman

deepcgi says

Consciousness preceeds chemistry. Unfortunately, more and more scientists are putting forth just such explanations to explain the delayed choice.

Consciousness preceeding Chemistry is a grand claim. Care to offer a grand proof? At least recent citations where these scientists are putting forth such explanations?

deepcgi says

You may be a part of the "god" you reject, and we may have already executed the experiment that leads to that conclusion. That's enough of that, I'm sure.

Strangely for a person studying Quantum Mechanics, you have a constant inclination with the word 'God' and elude a conversation without the loaded connotation that comes with 'God'.

In fact if you keep connecting what we don't know about Quantum Mechanics with God, you sound more and more like Deepak Chopra, LOL. Your moniker 'deepcgi' seems to indicate that you may be his follower.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/CLwnqDvlXqI

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z-FaXD_igv4

Deepcgi, you still haven't answered my objection to the fact that consciousness, by definition, requires lifeforms, and immediately following the big bang there were no lifeforms to provide "organizational power" through their consciousness.

I like this deepcgi guy.

@ deepcgi

You have to realize there are several people on this forum that to varying degrees can not relate to

1) An agnostic pov on Gods existence.

or

2) An adult kind of belief in God which is not centered on a very googoo gaga, daddy in the sky, being (that one can have a relationship with) definition of God.

I know that many adult believers including even priests and ministers, have mature and very undefined views of what "god" is or might be. For example an episcopal bishop whose videos I have posted here several times, who describes his belief as "walking in to the mystery."

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6AfFcAmx-Ro&playnext=1&list=PL4AFF1E93650B210B&feature=results_main

He also doesn't beat around the bush in discussing that all serious religious scholars (including priests and ministers) don't take all of the bible or all of Christian doctrine to be literally true.

Even without getting in to talking about consciousness (or all consciousness), or quantum mechanics which starts to get at contemplating what god might possibly be about if not a being, that is even if you want to just talk about Bishop Sprongs "walking into the mystery" which gets to a spritual prism through which he sees everything, this is very troubling to the atheists on this forum and I'm sure atheists in general.

We are talking about a perspective they can not comprehend. And yet they have a fierce need to judge it, to justify their deep beliefs that there is nothing spiritual or that might be thought of as God.

As you said they need this answer.

Thus you hear childish and silly arguments such as. "You say you don't know whether God exists is like me saying I don't know whether there are unicorns."
TO them this is profound logic, and the height of their reasoning on this question.

They have gone through a long and difficult struggle to reject god in any form. At this point they need to justify the belief that there is no god. TRying on an 'I don't know' point of view (which to you or I is so obviously the truth) is disturbing to them.

(maybe this is one of the reasons why it is considered bad form to discuss religion or politics in polite company)

deepcgi says

But Quantum Physics has rung the death knell of cause-and-effect.

Must resist temptation to write 100 page paper on Quantum Mechanics and why the proletarian don't understand it.

Actually, I don't have to do that because I've already have. Please read the post where I explain exactly what the Uncertainty Principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation mean. Don't worry, I make it clear and easy to understand.

Then read the post where I explain that Quantum Mechanics disproves god rather than supports the god of the gaps. Please note that post is a rebuttal to a Creationist video.

deepcgi says

I personally think that Will Wright is God. He's the creator of the Sims and Spore.

Your standards for games is -- no pun intended -- god awful. Spore was originally meant to be a substantive game, but the dumb asses took control of the project and made it entirely into meaningless fluff. The only thing they put effort into was the graphics, and even that sucked. The game play was atrocious, and it wasn't even a game. At best it was three unrelated mini-activities followed by a long, boring, and pointless grind.

Spore was over-hyped crap. It was the Facebook of games.

deepcgi says

If there is no immortality, there can be no virtue, and all things are permissible.

Why should I accept that statement? Why would immortality be a prerequisite of virtue. That makes as much sense as trickle-down economics.

uomo_senza_nome says

De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

As I've written before, there are three types of knowledge: a priori, empirical, and corollary. There is an infinite amount of possible a priori knowledge, and all of it can be known with 100% certainty. There is a finite amount of empirical knowledge, but it can also be known to within the precision of your measuring stick. There is a finite amount of corollary knowledge, and this is the only knowledge that we can only be less than 100% certain of.

The existence of god, by any definition that merits worship and obedience, is an a prior question and can be proved or disproved with 100% certainty as I have done so, so many times on this site.

deepcgi says

Is universal consciousness a definition of God?

You can make "dog shit" the definition of god, but that does not mean people will worship it. Any definition of god used in an academic argument only to be discarded when talking to the faithful in church, temple, mosque, etc. is a disingenuous definition and serves no purpose. So, you proved the existence of dog shit. That doesn't prove the existence of the entity Christians say is the reason gays can't marry.

If you're looking for anything unknown to justify the use of the word god, don't. It's a pointless exercise. If someone discovers a new species of ape and decides to call it "Big Foot", doesn't mean that the Big Foot of legend actually exists. It just means the guy was being a dick for naming a real species after a bunch of hoaxes and lies. It may confuse the public, but it does not add legitimacy to the Big Foot legend. Neither does taking something completely irrelevant to all theologies that ever existed and calling it "god" add to the legitimacy of those theologies.

uomo_senza_nome says

I can't think of a more loaded word in English than God.

Other than "fuck".

The more meanings a word has, the less meaning it has.

deepcgi says

Consciousness preceeds chemistry.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BNsrK6P9QvI

No, chemistry precedes consciousness.

marcus says

I like this deepcgi guy.

Of course. You like anyone who agrees with you and hate anyone who disagrees with you. You're best friend is the mirror.

Dan8267 says

You like anyone who agrees with you and hate anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't know that he agrees with me, and he (or she) isn't particularly like me. But I like the playfulness of his or her views, and some of the provocative suggestions, such as...

deepcgi says

Quantum Physics is the death of determinism and cause-and-effect, but the rise of evidence of consciousness preceeding chemistry. That is the skeleton in the closet of science right there. The damn Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser experiment has actually been confirmed!

I'm not sure whether all the inferences some get from the double slit experiments are correct or whether there is something very important about light that we just don't yet understand. But it's definitely bizarre stuff and pretty darn interesting in any case.

The thoughts cgi shares about some of the implications of quantum mechanics sound like he has really toyed with some of the big questions that come up. Where as your out of place long writing on the subject looked like they were just careful rewording of what you read in some encyclopedia. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I like the question "what if consciousness precedes chemistry ?"

One issue with this thread seems to begin in the title, i.e. "religious logic."

To quote Charles Blow, "Religion isn't defined by logic. It defies it." More sophisticated thinkers like Bishop Spong re-frame religion, and reduce it to a way of looking at the world, like rose colored glasses. The comments above analogizing religion to quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, and Einstein's relativity can all be summed up with Hemingway's question, "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

Religion persists because it organizes people and motivates them to do individually irrational things on behalf of the group, like have 10 kids with no idea how to provide for them, then go crusade to kill infidels. The anger in the cartoon is intrinsic, i.e. the likelihood of an argument overheating into violence is inversely proportional to the evidence available to settle the question. In other words, because religious beliefs cannot ultimately be proved, they lend themselves easily to violence and more generally to the use of force.

Marcus and others like to believe that their professions of moderate belief protect them from fundamentalist fanaticism. Unfortunately, in a society based on religion, moderation is quickly banned. Witness our "allies" in officially Islamic Pakistan, where a young Punjabi woman wanted to convert to Christianity. The penalty in Sharia is death, but the Governor said she should not be killed. He was then assassinated for blasphemy. The assassins were caught, but huge crowds demanded their release. The region is desperately poor, but the crowds showered the assassins with rose petals. As in North Korea, fanatical devotion becomes a contest. The dynamic leads to ever greater shows of devotion and force.

If you don't think it can happen here, look at the history of Prop H8, where members of Romney's cult donated their life savings and crusaded door to door to stop gay couples from getting married. Watch "8: The Mormon Proposition" and you can't help noticing the intensity of their hatred, and the later scenes which can in essence be described as child sacrifice. Religion was by far the #1 predictor of how people voted, with more than 80% of Evangelical "Christians" voting to terminate the equal protection of the laws and more than 80% of Atheists voting to protect the Constitution. If you think it can't affect you, read _all_ of the prohibitions in Leviticus, including shellfish, most meats and fowl, clothing of mixed fiber, and cutting the corners of your beard. Exodus makes forgetting the one true sabbath a capital offense, and the Abrahamic religions have three different sabbaths: Friday for Muslims, Saturday for Jews, and Sunday for Christians. The Pakistanis' blood is the same color as yours, the Shi'ites and Sunnis' blood is likewise the same color; the Crusades, the Reformation, and the troubles in Ireland all showed abundantly that everybody's blood is the same color. The Enlightenment, as codified in our Constitution, provides a thin veneer of civilization over a prehistoric tendency towards religious crusade. Many have said, if the Constitution were put to a popular vote today, it would not pass.

uomo_senza_nome says

Russell's teapot

What if this said teapot cast a shadow on the moon that we could all see?

curious2 says

Marcus and others like to believe that their professions of moderate belief protect them from fundamentalist fanaticism.

That's not what I believe.

What I believe is that "spiritual beliefs" happen. That this is part of human nature.

And I believe that advocating for atheism, or proselytizing for atheism is no more likely to diminish fanatical fundamentalism in the world than advocating or proselytizing for more moderate religious beliefs is.

In fact, I even think that an good argument could be made that the growth of atheism may be more of a catalyst to the growth of fanatical fundamentalism than the growth of moderate or progressive religions would be.

Not too long ago science argued that the rabbit DID NOT chew it's cud, yet the bible said it did........Hmmmmm I wondered who was correct? Man also thought the earth was flat yet the bible said it was a circle/sphere.We all know now what happened.......yes they did not sail off the end of earth!

Man made things like the " Carbon time Clock" are full of holes but yet man is determined to prove we came from apes millions of years ago...yet we still have apes? WOW...The bible says we were created according to kind......Now that makes sense.

Don't always lean on your own understanding. Creation is proof enough to show there is a creator.

The question is now about faith. Do you have the faith he will clean up the mess and there is a plan in place or will you continue to lean on your "own understanding" >?

marcus says

At this point they need to justify the belief that there is no god.

There is no god is not a belief. It is an extremely likely conclusion based on cumulative scientific knowledge. To say "I don't know" is not enlightenment, it is rejecting the accomplishments of science and believing in God for the wooly concepts that we don't yet understand.

An atheist doesn't need the word 'God' to explain away things we don't yet understand. We can simply explore what we don't understand and hope to get closer to the truth.

In this sense, the childishness is actually on the agnostic PoV and not the atheist.

I can see why you would think atheists are being childish (because sometimes arguments can get very heated), but I don't agree with it because you are generalizing all atheists to be like the ones you've known before.

If the Jesus the Hippy Preacher belief is the correct version, or some nambly pambly Gnostic belief for that matter, the Inquisition, Witchburning, Abuse of Inuit Children, War on Hygiene (Since the prophets didn't bathe and were Righteous, to be righteous you shouldn't bath, either) etc grew out of that belief anyway.

Thus, even out of a benign form of supernatural belief, bad things can happen. See also the Buddhist thread.

JohnAlexander says

Man also thought the earth was flat yet the bible said it was a circle/sphere.

The Bible did not argue the earth was flat: Corners of the Earth, The Solid Metal Dome that God hammered out (Hebrew Verb: Rak'ia, to beat) and put over the land and hung the sun and moon on, etc. There are also talking Donkeys, Men living in Whales, Animals getting their coloring from what their mother stared at, stopping the sun in the sky during a battle, dead coming back to life, walking on water, etc. etc. etc.

In fact the Bible was quoted in defense of the flat earth for more than a thousand years by the Church. The OT conception of the Earth was similar to that of the Babylonians; a flat round disc suspended over water with a solid dome over it. Because much of the Bible is written in poetic language, you can stretch the meanings to make it defend most conceptions. However, the ancient Hebrews believed in a flat Earth, and they're the ones who wrote the damn thing. As did the Early and Middle Ages Christians.

The OT is a collection of myths believed by barely literate Goat Herders from a backwater part of the ancient world. The NT is a collection of rival tales about a fictional Jewish Carpenter who was the sun of God, and the inconsistencies (Not to bring peace but with a sword/Blessed are the Peacemakers. Obey the Law until all is fulfilled/Circumsize your heart instead) are because of rival groups of early Christians putting different words into the fictional Jesus' mouth to fit their own ends.

Just about every "Bible Scholar" wibbler admits the NT shows scars of battle between rival factions all over it; only a minority of the most Fundamentalist believers deny it.

marcus says

I even think that an good argument could be made that the growth of atheism may be more of a catalyst to the growth of fanatical fundamentalism than the growth of moderate or progressive religions would be.

We are not born with intelligence to which we cumulatively add; we are born with ignorance which we must successively shed. - Old Sanskrit Proverb.

An atheist is willing to successively shed this ignorance to reach closer to the truth. So of course it is going to rile the fundamentalists more because they want everyone to remain willfully ignorant.

An agnostic PoV (which obviously deepcgi espouses and you agree to) is someone who is satisfied with saying "I don't know".

In fact, we are asking deepcgi to substantiate his grand claim of consciousness preceeding chemistry (he claimed there are scientific papers that talk about this) and there has been no proper, precise response so far. Instead we have been treated with platitudes on Quantum mechanics and random usage of the word 'God', whatever that may mean.

marcus says

That's not what I believe... I even think that an good argument could be made [for what you started out saying you don't believe].

Defensive reactions are natural, people don't like to be called wrong about anything, so in that sense you illustrate (perhaps inadvertently) your point.

Also, there is current evidence to support your view. For example, countries with the best human rights protections tend to have moderate Christian governments (specifically Anglican, Catholic, or Lutheran). In contrast, the American government, which does not have an official religion, can at times become captured by "born again" believers whose sophistry can rationalize everything from torture to war all over the world.

But there is stronger evidence against it. Can you name any "moderate" Muslim country that you would want to live in? Even living next door to one can be hazardous, as India can attest. Combat Hair Stylist Romney dresses like a moderate, but he'd strip down to his magic underwear in a minute; he donates million$ to LDS "charity", including their support for Prop H8. As others have said, "for good people to do bad things requires religion." The reason is because, by outsourcing their morality to power-hungry preachers, otherwise good people get fooled into doing terrible things.

Also you seem quick to disagree with Dan and even to claim to disagree with me, yet when do you disagree with JohnAlexander, Bap, Quigley, or even wthrfork/freak80? I can't find examples, but if you can link to any I would be glad to see them. Instead, you concede their premise at least, which puts you halfway to accepting their conclusions, i.e. any 'compromise' would be based on a religious consensus involving the preferred characters (while rejecting the hapless Spaghetti Monster, who is only trying to help by feeding the hungry, and doesn't realize that too much pasta can be unhealthy).

marcus says

Thus you hear childish and silly arguments such as. "You say you don't know whether God exists is like me saying I don't know whether there are unicorns."

Actually when this say this I think they mean, "The amount of evidence that god(s) exist is equal to the amount of evidence that unicorns exist."

This is true regardless of how one chooses to define god(s).

marcus says

What I believe is that "spiritual beliefs" happen. That this is part of human nature.

I agree that "spiritual belief" is part of human nature and does just happen to some people, even the majority of people to varying degrees. A persons level of "natural" belief can even change over time and physical changes to the brain can also alter how this belief manifests itself. (see: being born-again linked to brain atrophy, and the God Helmet)

However, this natural inclination to spirituality certainly does not take place in every human. So,...

marcus says

They have gone through a long and difficult struggle to reject god in any form. At this point they need to justify the belief that there is no god.

...there is no "difficult" struggle for these people to reject god(s). It is just not in their individual nature to believe in god(s). The only evidence for god(s) comes from an individuals personal faith, and the root of this faith comes from an "internal" god helmet.

marcus says

TRying on an 'I don't know' point of view (which to you or I is so obviously the truth) is disturbing to them.

I don't think that it is that simple.

Yes, 'I don't know' is the philosopical truth.

I think what disturbs those that identify as atheist is that often when people say 'I don't know', what they are really seem to be saying is, 'I and you can't say that god(s) don't exist so there must be an equal probability that they do or do not exist.'

I have heard that argument many times, not from agnostics, but from died in the wool religious believers.

Also, agnosticism and atheism is not mutually exclusive. One can easily say, 'I don't know, but due to the lack of evidence I don't believe.'

marcus says

(maybe this is one of the reasons why it is considered bad form to discuss religion or politics in polite company)

Yes, only because most people can not restrain themselves from becoming impolite when discussing religion or politics.

Dan8267 says

Your standards for games is -- no pun intended -- god awful.

Hey! Hey! While I would not give the game designer god-hood status I enjoyed both Spore and Sims.

Dan8267 says

deepcgi says

If there is no immortality, there can be no virtue, and all things are permissible.

Why should I accept that statement? Why would immortality be a prerequisite of virtue. That makes as much sense as trickle-down economics.

Umm...I would say less sense than trickle-down economics. In the full quote Dostoevsky's response to the idea actually sounds a little like a response you would write Dan...

"An attractive theory for scoundrels! — (I’m being abusive, that’s stupid.) Not for scoundrels, but for pedantic poseurs, ‘haunted by profound, unsolved doubts.’ He’s showing off, and what it all comes to is, ‘on the one hand we cannot but admit’ and ‘on the other it must be confessed!’ His whole theory is a fraud! Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity.’"

leoj707 says

Also, agnosticism and atheism is not mutually exclusive. One can easily say, 'I don't know, but due to the lack of evidence I don't believe.'

Technically speaking, agnosticism and theism are not only mutually exclusive, but are almost always copresent; after all theists are called believers, not knowers, so the very word clearly states a lack of certainty. People have their own reasons for describing themselves as atheist, theist, or agnostic; its pointless to quibble about the technical differences between the designations.

uomo_senza_nome says

So of course it is going to rile the fundamentalists more because they want everyone to remain willfully ignorant.

why do fundamentalists want everyone ignorant?

Bap33 says

why do fundamentalists want everyone ignorant?

Because if a person sheds their ignorance, they wouldn't be fundamentalists in the first place. The fundamentalists won't have anyone to rally with them then.

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4.Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6.Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
7.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
8.Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
9.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
10.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
11.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
12.Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
13.Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

curious2 says

marcus says

That's not what I believe... I even think that a good argument could be made [for what you started out saying you don't believe].

Defensive reactions are natural, people don't like to be called wrong about anything, so in that sense you illustrate (perhaps inadvertently) your point.

re: "[for what you started out saying you don't believe]"....

we can have a pointless semantics argument here if that is what you want. Here's what I meant, spelled out in a different way: Given the following hypothetical thought experiment:

World #1 has 2 milion people, half are fanatic fundamentalist Christians, the other half are atheists

World #2 has 2 million people, half are fanatic fundamentalist Christians, and the other half are unitarian universalists.

I'm not at all sure which world would more quickly or easily evolve to having a decreasing number of fanatical fundies. MY opinion is that it's probably the second world. If you want to say the unitarians used their belief to protect themselves from the fanatics, okay, or that they thought that was the case,...okay. But in my view they had their beliefs for reasons independent of the fundies, but they may have happened to also coincidentally had a more positive impact on them than the atheists (in the other world).

curious2 says

Also you seem quick to disagree with Dan and even to claim to disagree with me, yet when do you disagree with JohnAlexander, Bap, Quigley, or even wthrfork/freak80? I can't find examples, but if you can link to any I would be glad to see them. Instead, you concede their premise at least, which puts you halfway to accepting their conclusions, i.e. any 'compromise' would be based on a religious consensus involving the preferred characters (while rejecting the hapless Spaghetti Monster, who is only trying to help by feeding the hungry, and doesn't realize that too much pasta can be unhealthy).

I don't know. I like Bap personally for reasons that I can't explain. I know that since he's kind of a racist and has religious views that I can't relate to, this may seem strange. MY views on so many things are way closer to Dan's, and yet I often find him to be a hateful little Napoleon.

When Bap get's to me, at this point I would rather ignore him than argue. I'm not going to get through. I have argued with him many times though. Sometimes too vigorously, such as regarding the whole Travon Martin murder.

I don't get you're point. A majority of conversations, including ones where people say things or have premises I don't agree with aren't even read by me, or if they are, aren't of interest.

Bap33 says

uomo_senza_nome says

So of course it is going to rile the fundamentalists more because they want everyone to remain willfully ignorant.

why do fundamentalists want everyone ignorant?

uomo_senza_nome says

Bap33 says

why do fundamentalists want everyone ignorant?

Because if a person sheds their ignorance, they wouldn't be fundamentalists in the first place. The fundamentalists won't have anyone to rally with them then.

their reason to keep everyone ignorant is to keep their group size up? What is the oposing side doing to increase their numbers?

Wouldn't the same population increases be more easily done by adjusting what is popular in a culture? And to do that, wouldn't it be wise to focus on the next generations/young poeple and use the public school system and it's rules to make small "nudges" in the young people's belief systems? And if an anti-Christian-America group seen that system working well in the removing of a common morality in an American culture, couldn't the same group use the same system to change the entire political and social structure of their target? Seems like that might work.

If it's just about adding numbers to one's group, then all groups are doing the same thing. Right? It's all just one big popularity contest?

@marcus,
where's the love bro?? lol
I blame the heat.

uomo_senza_nome says

There is no god is not a belief. It is an extremely likely conclusion based on cumulative scientific knowledge.

So you believe (excuse me perceive or logically conclude) somehow that that there is nothing beyond man's comprehension or beyond that which could possibly one day be comprehended ?

Yeah, I say this is a belief. There's no evidence one way or the other, but from my point of view, it's fairly likely that the physical and space time reality as we know it (or can know it) is not all there is.

(although what we do know on the particle level continues to get more and more bizarre and further and further from a mechanistic Newtonian view).

By the way about afterlife: I find it to be extremely unlikely that my ego, personality, memories, or anything that I think of as "I," will persist after I die. Logic helps me conclude this, but it's a belief. (but this semantics - believe versus conclude is not interesting to me).

What is interesting to me, whether you want to call it a logical conclusion or a belief, is that you believe that there is nothing beyond what we can (or may one day be able to) understand of this universe.

OR you might tell me, maybe you have, that if if "something" is beyond our understanding or outside of our perceivable comprehendable reality, who cares, it's irrelevant to us. Sort of like if there intelligent creatures on a planet a million light years away, who cares ? It's irrelevant.

MAybe. But still if you ask me, is it likely there is intelligent life elsewhere in this universe, I say yes, I believe that to be fairly likely.

(I know that's not what we were talking about - but to me it's similar)

Likewise, to me it's likely that there is much about this universe and maybe outside of this universe (as we know it or can know it) which is beyond our grasp as humans (and not only for now).

(a couple of small edits were made)

Bap -

Yes, you can say that atheists are all for reason and it is opposing fundamentalism (which is based on ignorance).

Now if you want to live your life ignorantly, that's fine by me. I'm not going to force you to change or hurt you. I am going to state reasonable explanations for why you should not be ignorant, but I won't force you. You can take the horse to the water etc.

But think about the same thing from the fundamentalist point of view? Do you see the difference then?

Marcus -

If I can condense the gist of your argument: is there anything we don't comprehend today? Yes, lots of things. (I think we agree here).

But does that mean that we will never comprehend it tomorrow? Answer is highly likely to be No. (this is where we disagree). Human ingenuity has no bounds.

There's another part where we also disagree. Because we don't comprehend everything yet today, you need the word God. I don't.

uomo_senza_nome says

If I can condense the gist of your argument: is there anything we don't comprehend today? Yes, lots of things. (I think we agree here).

You so have no clue what I am saying. Hey, a man has to know his limitations.

I did change the subject away from God somewhat. If there is a god, in my view she isn't a being or a sky daddy and I have know idea what she might be if she exists. Perhaps all consciousness as deepcgi said. Beyond our comprehension in any case.

I don't have much time, but let me try, even if wasting time, because you only wish to insult me with bs ("Because we don't comprehend everything yet today, you need the word God").

I'm not arguing for gods existence. I'm taking issue with your reasoning that:

"It is an extremely likely conclusion based on cumulative scientific knowledge"

Scientific knowledge only deals with the knowable physical and space time reality as we know it or will know it.

LOGIC: How can science regarding this physical and knowable world, tell you about that which by definition, if it exists is beyond our knowable world, and or that which might only be glimpsed in small hints from our knowable world ?

If I believe in God, it is not because I rely on God to answer anything that can be answered by science.

My point: I believe that there may be truths, realities, or whatever you want to call them that are beyond science.

(not to worry - I believe that it's also fairly unlikely that you are both willing and able to get what I'm saying. Stick with your version if it makes you happy). I don't want to "collapse your wave function."

(please people - it's just a metaphor - I know that this doesn't apply to our gross level)

marcus says

even if wasting time, because you only wish to insult me with bs

That was not BS, that was a serious comment. Hilarious that you would take a simple comment like that as an insult.

marcus says

If I believe in God

marcus says

I believe that there may be truths, realities

marcus says

I believe that it's also fairly unlikely that you

I think we have established who is steeped in beliefs and who is not.

I get it. Take issue with semantics of believe versus conclude. You won't hear me, and that's all you've got. Still, I say you win. Well done.

Seriously, kudos to you !

Congratulations.

marcus says

You won't hear me, and that's all you've got.

If you imagine that I've closed my ears, then you are going to assume that I won't hear you.

I have clearly asked for evidence to the grand claim that consciousness preceeds chemistry. Looks like our quantum expert has become very quiet, LOL.

marcus says

Take issue with semantics of believe versus conclude

Not quite. You believe that there may be truths or realities beyond science's comprehension. So you actually believe in something without any evidence whatsoever.

Sorry, i've been away. There are hundreds of scholarly papers on the connections of consciousness with quantum physics. It is simply because it is one absolutely logical conclusion we must come to when we see wave function collapse in areas NOT being measured, only because the measuring choice made to be placed in the area where the particle "wasn't" is definitely related to the area where the particle was - even if that choice is made AFTER the particle has already passed through the key obstacle. The result of the experiment changes AFTER the event depending on what choice is made regarding measurement of areas which include those through which the photon may NEVER have passed. There is no limit to how late the decision can be delayed - as the summaries of the experiments indicate, it's possible that a photon emitted specifically for the purpose of such an experiment at the moment of the Big Bang could have it's wave function collapsed (or not) at any point in the past based on decisions which could be made this afternoon. In short, if we choose Method A we get result A with two possible configurations. If we choose Method B, we get result B with two completely different configurations, and those results will ALWAYS have been true all the way back 13 billion years ago.

It's difficult to point to one place to reference them, so the simplest place to begin might be:

Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness [Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner]

Now, here are some other scientific papers and scholarly articles addressing the topic, but remember...This is without a doubt THE most devisive and controversial topic in the history of science. It is as controversial as it is because Quantum Theory is the most battle tested Theory in history. The computers we use would not function if the effects were not predictable. The bizarre quantum behavior has never been proven to fail in experimentation. But coming to a conclusion that consciousness may change quantum reality, is just NOT palettable to many scientists. Certainly, the older ones. The younger generation is a different story. They seem to be able to think a bit out-of-the-box.

One new field which has arisen recently is a direct result of scientific attention finally being paid to the connection of consciousness and quantum behavior is Digital Physics. Most of its proponents are atheist or agnostic, so you might find it a fascinating (if not absurdly scifi-like) approach.

Just to be helpful, after years of study, I have one way of looking at Quantum mechanics that, if you keep it in mind while reading all of the heavy science, may be very useful. Here it is:

It is very possible that the building blocks of matter, the quantum elements of which we speak (which may be made to have mass only because of the Boson Field, by the way - to bring new research into the argument) DO NOT IN FACT EXIST AT ALL UNTIL REQUIRED TO EXIST. We tend to think of these particles as having regions of probability where they exist, like they are buzzing around, spinning and vibrating, but the uncertainty principle is making impossible for us to know their states without interfering with them. The more we research quantum mechanics however, the more it appears that these particles are actually NOWHERE AT ALL. They have mathematically probable regions and states where we can count on them existing at some point, but not until our observation requires it. I know that sounds crazy, but what it essentially means is that, when I say "observation", i am referring to all of the universe to which we all belong. Like we are all entangled together, and so the universe we all share has one past because your decisions effect all of us. How much time has passed is irrelevant because the past is as fluid as the future. It doesn't matter when our supposed common consciousness arose - only that the universe around us exists because it is required to exist.

There ARE in fact, PROOFS, that particles do not exist at all until required to. Science dubs the phenomenon Quantum Tunnelling, because it can't fathom the idea that the particles are actually nothing at all (only mathematical probabilities) until required to exist.

Lastly, the fact that, when broken down into it's basic fundamentals, everything we are made of is "granular" (quanta) - one way of considering our state of existence is to call it "Digital". Hence "Digital Physics". It may all sound like a mess, but if you keep the above interpretation in mind, it may save you a migraine or two.

Cheers everyone.

Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff ‘Orch OR‘ model of consciousness:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/356/1743/1869.short

Albert, D. 1992. Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Harvard University Press.

Albert, D, and B. Loewer. 1988. Interpreting the many-worlds interpretation. Synthese 77, 195-213.

Barrett, J. 1994. The suggestive properties of quantum mechanics without the collapse postulate. Erkenntnis 42, 89-105.

Block, N. 1995. On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18, 227-87.

Byrne, A., and N. Hall. 1988. Chalmers, Papineau, and Saunders on probability and many minds interpretations of quantum mechanics. MS.

Chalmers, D. J. 1996. The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press.

Dennett, D. C. 1991. Conciousness Explained. Little, Brown.

Deutsch, D. 1996. Comment on Lockwood. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 222-8.

Dretske, F. 1995. Naturalizing the Mind. MIT Press.

Everett, H. 1957. `Relative-state' formulation of quantum mechanics. Reprinted in J. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, eds., Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton University Press, 1983.

Hall, N. 1996. Composition in the Quantum World. Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.

Harman, G. 1988. Wide functionalism. In S. Schiffer and S. Steele, eds., Cognition and Representation, Westview Press.

Lewis, D. K. 1980. A subjectivist's guide to objective chance. Reprinted in his Philosophical Papers, vol. 2., Oxford University Press, 1986.

Lewis, D. K. 1983. New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61, 343-77.

Lewis, D. K. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Basil Blackwell.

Lockwood, M. 1989. Mind, Brain and the Quantum. Basil Blackwell.

Lockwood, M. 1996. `Many minds' interpretations of quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 159-87.

Loewer, B. 1996. Comment on Lockwood. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 229-32.

Lycan, W. G. 1996. Consciousness and Experience. MIT Press.

Russell, B. 1950. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. Allen & Unwin.

Searle, J. 1990. Is the brain a digital computer? Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 64, 21-37.

Shoemaker, S. 1982. The inverted spectrum. Journal of Philosophy 79, 357-81.

Tye, M. 1995. Ten Problems of Consciousness. MIT Press.

Zachary says

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God...

And your point is?

I believe what you are referring to was discussed at length in this thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1189351

Scholarly != Scientific

This is the appeal to authority fallacy.

In any case you've Book Bombed us with various titles, most of which do not deal with Quantum Physics and Consciousness together, but appear to deal with each subject separately. I find it hard to believe in all the popular shows and books about Physics, I've yet to come across an argument about Consciousness preceding Physics.

Certainly, as somebody impressed by the idea that Consciousness precedes Physics, you can give us a synopsis with perhaps a few examples or at least analogies.

My understanding of Physics is below basic, but isn't some of this explained by the Uncertainty Principle?

thunderlips11 says

I've yet to come across an argument about Consciousness preceding Physics.

I agree. And all these references cited by deepcgi are not specific to the assertion being made, which is consciousness precedes chemistry.

deepcgi, why don't you name just 1 specific scientific paper (published in a reputed conference/journal) where it is argued that consciousness precedes chemistry?

Claiming there's a connection between consciousness and quantum physics is one thing. Claiming consciousness precedes physics is a totally different beast altogether.