Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

Science seems to be the new religion of the new millennium. Even late last century is was getting that way. If you didn't/don't believe what science says or are either an ignorant fool, uneducated moron and so the list goes on.

I think there are fanatics on both sides of the fence. Me? I live somewhere in the middle. Live and let live, respect all beliefs no matter what you believe. Too many wars, inquisitions, purges etc etc have been carried out in the name of something, is science next on the list.

I think you've misunderstood a very fundamental part of what is being compared. Calling science a religion is comparing apples to oranges. Science is not a faith and will never be.

Science isn't a religion. It's not even a faith. It's a method for finding truth. We all use various methods for finding the truth. "Common sense" is another very popular system for finding the truth. Which options "feels" right is another one. The nice thing with science is that it's pretty well defined so it becomes a bit easier to understand which steps other people took to reach their truth using science. It makes communication easier.

The holocaust and the communist "experiments" have all been done in the name of science. So in numbers of people killed I don't think religion is even close, even though they've had plenty more time to do it. But that's not an argument for religion. It doesn't add to its credibility. All it means is that we shouldn't draw too strong conclusions if we don't have enough material to back our theories up with. That goes for any theory. Religious and secular alike. If we do the right thing for the wrong reason, we aren't less deluded.

[Rhabbi]

Tom, just a quick question, how is saying I don't know giving crediblity to anything?

This is the main problem that atheist have, they are sure that there is no god, so they close their minds to the possiblity. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is no proof on either side of the debate, and refuse to make up their minds without proof.

[TomOfSweden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

"O'Hair" was the correct spelling of her name. And silly me completely forgetting about communism. Not that I'd heard of her before. And off-course just because I can't think of any fundamentalist atheists. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom, just a quick question, how is saying I don't know giving crediblity to anything?

At least it's honest, which none of the other theories are. They are if you will a leap of faith. A leap of faith right out into the dark. It's deeply deluded and very very sad.

This is the main problem that atheist have, they are sure that there is no god, so they close their minds to the possiblity. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is no proof on either side of the debate, and refuse to make up their minds without proof.

You'll probably be able to find an atheist who can identify with that description if you look hard enough. I've never met one. Most, if not all atheists I've spoken to have based their choice of faith on available evidence. Super-naturalists don't have any. It's at best hearsay and "experiences" completely impossible for anybody or anything else to verify. I think most atheists simply reject that kind of evidence. They want something more tangible to take the "leap".

The only reason why I don't identify with agnostics is because it in common usage takes away any platform to attack the deists. Strictly speaking I am agnostic. The problem of the term is that it imagines a world where theism is on one side, atheism is on the other and agnostics are on both sides. As if the theists have a point worth taking into consideration. I reject that model of the world completely. I deny that we even know which side we're on. I think it's a stupid debate because we have so little information. It's like going to a small village in Congo and drawing conclusions about all Africans...In the tenth dimension. Why?!? What could we possibly think we can figure out? We're still on the fact finding stage still. We don't have enough information to even start working out anything.

Do you have an open mind about gravity? Do you worry about flying off into space one day? Do you worry about molecular cohesion seizing so that you sink into the pavement one day? Off-course not. Because you believe in science.

For some reason you've kept an open mind about this one little tiny detail of science because you want to cling to an ancient scientific theory of the nature of the world. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But be honest about it! Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

[Flaming_Redhead]

Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

Tom, you know what happens when you assume....ass...u...me. *smiles* I go to church occasionally. I don't hold with religion on principal because I think all are missing some key element, like Jesus, or adding something they shouldn't, like legalism. That's another debate. I don't reject other religions because they all contain, as you pointed out, the same basic commandments as Christianity. Just because they have a different name for God than I do doesn't mean that's not his name.

Right about what? I don't know what Satanists say, but if they prefer to bet on a horse that's already lost....I suppose that's their perogative.

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Red"]I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

[Rhabbi]

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

As you can see, there is a slight difference between them. Labeling your self as an atheist makes you dishonest, like all atheists. At least people who believe in god are honest about their views. I know of a few agnostics who challenge the views of theists, and their challenges are usually more informed and better thought out than those of atheists, because they are at least open to taking then seriously. Outright rejection of a viewpoint is a bias that is hard to overcome in a debate, something I know from experience the few times I have attempted to debate someone whose views were so skewed that I could not accept them.

As for your question, that would depend entirely on which Christian you asked. I know of quite a few Christians with a liberal viewpoint that would have no serious problem with that premise. If you do not believe me, just go look at those who want to point out all the similarities between all the worlds religions. The ones who would tell you that just because Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him, that does not mean that people who believe in Muhhommad will not get to heaven. After all, they worship the same God.

[Rhabbi]

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think.

And exactly where did you get that statistic? I can cite numerous scientists who believe in God, either as Christians or Muslims. and I am sure thaere a few who are Hindus also, not to mention the other religions.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

Would it have Tom? If they actually believed that, why didn't they believe the rest of what the Koran teaches? They did not crash those jets into the WTC because of a belief in an afterlife, they did it because they oppose the freedoms we have in the United States. Yet they spent a few months here enjoying the benifits of those freedoms, which they could not get where they were from.

It was not religon that cause 9/11, it was economics and suppression. They resented what we have, and tried to take it away from us. The saddest part is that they have succedded to an extent. We are a country now that is willing to exchange freedom for a sense of security. Makes me want to move to out, but there is no where else to go.

[Flaming_Redhead]

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

[TomOfSweden]

Would it have Tom? If they actually believed that, why didn't they believe the rest of what the Koran teaches? They did not crash those jets into the WTC because of a belief in an afterlife, they did it because they oppose the freedoms we have in the United States. Yet they spent a few months here enjoying the benifits of those freedoms, which they could not get where they were from.

It was not religon that cause 9/11, it was economics and suppression. They resented what we have, and tried to take it away from us. The saddest part is that they have succedded to an extent. We are a country now that is willing to exchange freedom for a sense of security. Makes me want to move to out, but there is no where else to go.

erm...That's a theory. Considering that Osama Bin Laden held a speech where he addressed just this and denied it. I think it's safe to say that it was an erroneous conclusion of the Bush administration and they where wrong to voice the theory.

According to Osama they attacked USA because they wanted USA and the CIA to stop meddling in the middle-east. This is what he said. It wasn't because they hated US freedom. Osama said that if they hated freedom they would have attacked Sweden. Which to me makes sense. When it comes to laws USA has a lot less freedom than we do. So much for that theory. Why would Al-Qaeda have a problem with US freedom? I don't get it? Have you given this any thought at all?

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not the suicide bombers thought that the sacrifice was worth it. I would assume that sacrificing yourself for anything becomes a lot less attractive if there's no after-life.

[TomOfSweden]

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

[Rhabbi]

According to Osama they attacked USA because they wanted USA and the CIA to stop meddling in the middle-east. This is what he said. It wasn't because they hated US freedom. Osama said that if they hated freedom they would have attacked Sweden. Which to me makes sense. When it comes to laws USA has a lot less freedom than we do. So much for that theory. Why would Al-Qaeda have a problem with US freedom? I don't get it? Have you given this any thought at all?

Why would they attack Sweden? If they attacked Sweden would they have gotten the public support in the middle east that they did? Of course not. And it is our freedoms that allows us to "interfere" in the Middle East.

On that question, exactly what interference is he talking about? The time we went into the Saudi Arabia at the invitation of his family? And then stayed there at the continued request to monitor the satus of Saddam Hussein? And defend them against the threat that he posed?

[Flaming_Redhead]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

People want something to believe in, and they don't want that something to be constantly changing. People like going to church and singing the same old hymns because it's familiar. It's a type of sanctuary from their hectic lives. They want God to be the same no matter what else is going on.

*smiles* The pope? Is he somebody special?

*wanders off muttering something about the whore of Babylon*

[tessa]

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm?

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not. But I will say this. I've witnessed for myself pure, unaffected evil. It's real and it's among us. I'm a Christian and while I won't say whether some Satanist is right or wrong, I know that evil is. But I also know that good is, too.

Yin and yang- the unity of opposites.

And I'm with Red (again). While the Pope may be a nice guy and all, I don't happen to ascribe to the notion that he has any more in-road to God than any of us do. No offense to any who believe differently, just as I hope no one wishes to offend me for my differences.

We get to believe as we believe. Sometimes, it's just that simple.

[Guest 91108]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates? ...

I think the fact that scientific theories change is what makes them so shakey to start with. there is no fact in a theory. if it changes then the known "facts" were false and at best not complete. that "shakiness" is the same thing you get when someone spews out words with out having never given those words any thought.. and noone understands them .. it's not communication because they grunted....
science is just as fallible as faith.
In time .. they all can be shaken.

[gagged_Louise]

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not

"Some /other Satanist groups/ are into burning down churches and the like, but that's something I regard as highly unsatanistic activities."

-said by the leader of a Norwegian Satanist cult, interviewed on radio about his beliefs and other Satanists and pseudo-Satanists.

Well spoken, Tessa!

[John56{vg}]

Wolfscout and tessa, such wonderful points, thank you.

Tom,

I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon here but it sounds like the scientist is making the same assumptions and jumping to conclusions that SOME of the Christian right is. I know many religious people who are intelligent and tolerant of all beliefs. And they do not condemn me for mine.

And how is it different to say "Evolution does not exist because it isn't in the Bible." as to say, "How can Supernatural events take place when it is not in this Chemistry book, or physics Book, or whatever"

Faith is important to everybody. And I would say tolerance is important to the world and universe as a whole.

[Sir_G]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Here's a brief definition of religion:

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. (Tom I note you have a Degree in Logic. Could it be that your primary world view is based on logic ie. it's your religion? And therefore you struggle with the idea of Faith etc. I know you are a Star Trek fan. Even the Vulcan's grudgingly accept that humans whilst highly illogical do have something going for them with their passions, beliefs, and emotions.)

There is no difference in believing that science has the answers than believing in, as you put it, some supernatural force. Scientists are just as fanatical as the next person. I've seen them turning blue in the face over a THEORY. A proven theory - no, just a theory. Einstein's theory of relativity is still that, a theory. We accept it as fact though today because string theory hasn't got enough disciples yet. No doubt the person who can give the most convincing argument there will become the new scientific messiah of this millenium. Religious texts may not change but they way they are interpreted certainly does.

(My Scientific God has just been shattered I just read that Einsteins theory of relativity is obsolete.) A lot of what science comes up with these days are THEORIES but we blindly say "OK I'll go along with that..." because they are scientists. Yet I can come up with a theory and be laughed out of my own house. What's the difference. Do numbers, degrees, and fellowships make them anymore or less credible than Saint Maria Francis Qui Gon Kenobi?

I think the bottom line is that we live in a changing world. Both science and religious beliefs will change and evolve whether we like it or not. One of my favourite quotes comes from the Matrix where Morpheus is on the mat before Commander Loch over his religious beliefs:

Loch: Dammit Morpheus not everyone believes what you do!

Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

[Rhabbi]

Wolfscout and tessa, such wonderful points, thank you.

Tom,

I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon here but it sounds like the scientist is making the same assumptions and jumping to conclusions that SOME of the Christian right is. I know many religious people who are intelligent and tolerant of all beliefs. And they do not condemn me for mine.

And how is it different to say "Evolution does not exist because it isn't in the Bible." as to say, "How can Supernatural events take place when it is not in this Chemistry book, or physics Book, or whatever"

Faith is important to everybody. And I would say tolerance is important to the world and universe as a whole.

Well said John.

Tom, the problem you have is not that religion is talking about God and the supernatural, but that these views conflict with your faith. (I am using the second most common definition of faith here, ie. Belief in something not based on proof.) If you did not believe in the supernatural being non existent without a shred of proof to back up this belief, it would be a lot easier for you to let people who do believe in it walk in their ignorance.

I personally do not believe in ghosts, and have watched documentaries that claim to offer proof. If someone actually asks me for my opinion, I will tell them that ghosts have always been proved to be something explainable when investigated by a group of scientists and magicians, yet I do not feel a need to shove this view down peoples throat, because I can also acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong.

This is the true scientific approach to a problem. I am willing to investigate what I believe and what I do not believe, and am willing to admit I do not have all the answers. There are things I know also.

Earlier you used the example of gravity in trying to poke holes in someones argument about having an open mind. I ignored this because I was sure that you knew that your argument was not a valid one. Gravity is a demonstrated fact, not a theory or a hypothesis. There are laws that govern the interaction of gravity on everything in the universe, including the totally massless photon.

Yet on a quantum level, the laws that we live by break down. Conservation of matter and energy do not apply. Gravity does not apply. Even the speed of light is no longer an effective barrier.

Can you tell me that God, if such a being exists, is not capable of interacting with the universe on a quantum level, thus producing things which appear to us to be supernatural? Just a little thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat. Who is to say that that cat is not both dead and alive until we observe it? Current quantum theory tells us that that subatomic particle actually waits for us to open the box to check on the cat before it decides wehter or not to kill the cat. If anything smacks of the supernatural to me, it is the idea that a subatomic particle makes a decision based on what I do, yet scientific theory backs this up.

Who are we to say that the supernatural does not exist when we do not fully understand the natural?

[TomOfSweden]

People want something to believe in, and they don't want that something to be constantly changing. People like going to church and singing the same old hymns because it's familiar. It's a type of sanctuary from their hectic lives. They want God to be the same no matter what else is going on.

*smiles* The pope? Is he somebody special?

*wanders off muttering something about the whore of Babylon*

This is two separate issues. One is that we want ever constant traditions and recognisable social patterns. I agree here. The other is just wishful thinking. We all know that the world is rarely the way we want it. Assuming it is because of lack of evidence either way is....children's logic.

[TomOfSweden]

Why would they attack Sweden? If they attacked Sweden would they have gotten the public support in the middle east that they did? Of course not. And it is our freedoms that allows us to "interfere" in the Middle East.

On that question, exactly what interference is he talking about? The time we went into the Saudi Arabia at the invitation of his family? And then stayed there at the continued request to monitor the satus of Saddam Hussein? And defend them against the threat that he posed?

I suggest you read up on US foreign policy history. I don't think that what Al Qaeda is in any way justified, but I have no problems understanding their motivations. Muslims have no problem with the American way of life, wealth or their freedom. Why should they? It makes no sense.

There's a radio show on the BBC that you can download called "Death to America". It deals with all this. Whether or not US intervention in international politics has been good or bad I think we need another thread for, but the fact that they have intervened is undeniable. People always get pissed off when others intervene. Just human nature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ve/6588603.stm

[TomOfSweden]

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm?

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?

I know there's plenty of practising atheist Jews, so it doesn't seem contradictory to me.

[TomOfSweden]

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Einstein was proved wrong a long time ago. Actually, he tried to work around the problems of his theories even before he'd published them.

I don't equate being religious with believing in anything supernatural at all. To me it's just a common set of rituals and values. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's very healthy. People who believe in the "super-natural" I call "super-naturalists".

[TomOfSweden]

As you can see, there is a slight difference between them. Labeling your self as an atheist makes you dishonest, like all atheists. At least people who believe in god are honest about their views. I know of a few agnostics who challenge the views of theists, and their challenges are usually more informed and better thought out than those of atheists, because they are at least open to taking then seriously. Outright rejection of a viewpoint is a bias that is hard to overcome in a debate, something I know from experience the few times I have attempted to debate someone whose views were so skewed that I could not accept them.

As for your question, that would depend entirely on which Christian you asked. I know of quite a few Christians with a liberal viewpoint that would have no serious problem with that premise. If you do not believe me, just go look at those who want to point out all the similarities between all the worlds religions. The ones who would tell you that just because Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him, that does not mean that people who believe in Muhhommad will not get to heaven. After all, they worship the same God.

Ok, so my assumption was wrong. That's good. I explained the reason why I don't chose to call myself agnostic even though I don't deny the supernatural. The definitions of atheist and agnostic goes a lot deeper than that and they're both huge families of various faiths. And they also float in and out of each other. Just like there's huge families of various Christian faiths and their view on the super-natural apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

[Sir_G]

Yet on a quantum level, the laws that we live by break down. Conservation of matter and energy do not apply. Gravity does not apply. Even the speed of light is no longer an effective barrier.

Can you tell me that God, if such a being exists, is not capable of interacting with the universe on a quantum level, thus producing things which appear to us to be supernatural? Just a little thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat. Who is to say that that cat is not both dead and alive until we observe it? Current quantum theory tells us that that subatomic particle actually waits for us to open the box to check on the cat before it decides wehter or not to kill the cat. If anything smacks of the supernatural to me, it is the idea that a subatomic particle makes a decision based on what I do, yet scientific theory backs this up.

Who are we to say that the supernatural does not exist when we do not fully understand the natural?

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

[TomOfSweden]

Wolfscout and tessa, such wonderful points, thank you.

Tom,

I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon here but it sounds like the scientist is making the same assumptions and jumping to conclusions that SOME of the Christian right is. I know many religious people who are intelligent and tolerant of all beliefs. And they do not condemn me for mine.

And how is it different to say "Evolution does not exist because it isn't in the Bible." as to say, "How can Supernatural events take place when it is not in this Chemistry book, or physics Book, or whatever"

I see your point. That would be a fundamental atheist. But it becomes confusing since that's also denying science.

Faith is important to everybody. And I would say tolerance is important to the world and universe as a whole.

I'm not particularly tolerant. I think tolerance is important, but I don't tolerate making exceptions for people who should know better. I'm not cultural relativist. To take an extreme example, I will never tolerate female circumcision, no matter how much it's part of their religion. I would never make stupid ass appeasements just to make some religion happy. The most important thing is to be pragmatic at all times. Traditions and practices that don't work in any given situation should be dropped. No matter what Jesus said. If everybody has to go out of their way to make some religious dude happy, it's obviously gone too far.

If I'm to pigeon hole myself I'd call myself a "militant liberal".

[Rhabbi]

For those who have trouble believing that men of faith can be scientists. I received this from a Christian Group I am a member of.

DID YOU hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn't simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled "Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John." Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning," he determined, it means 3988 BC.

Not many modern universities are prepared to employ a science professor who espouses not merely "intelligent design" but out-and-out divine creation. This applicant's writings on astronomy, for example, include these thoughts on the solar system: "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being . . . He governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done."

Hire somebody with such views to teach physics? At a Baptist junior college deep in the Bible Belt, maybe, but the faculty would erupt if you tried it just about anywhere else. Many of them would echo Oxford's Richard Dawkins, the prominent evolutionary biologist, who writes in "The God Delusion" that he is "hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. . . . It subverts science and saps the intellect."

Equally blunt is Sam Harris, a PhD candidate in neuroscience and another unsparing foe of religion. "The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum," he has written. "The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science." Less elegant but more influential, the National Science Education Standards issued by the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 classified religion with "myths," "mystical inspiration," and "superstition" -- all of them quite incompatible with scientific study. Michael Dini, a biologist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, made headlines in 2003 over his policy of denying letters of recommendation for any graduate student who could not "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question of mankind's origin. Science and religion, he said in an interview at the time, "shouldn't overlap."

But such considerations didn't keep Cambridge from hiring the theology- and Bible-drenched individual described above. Indeed, it named him to the prestigious Lucasian Chair of Mathematics -- in 1668. A good thing too, since Isaac Newton -- notwithstanding his religious fervor and intense interest in Biblical interpretation -- went on to become the most renowned scientist of his age, and arguably the most influential in history.

Newton's consuming interest in theology, eschatology, and the secrets of the Bible is the subject of a new exhibit at Hebrew University in Jerusalem (online at jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/Newton). His vast religious output -- an estimated 3 million words -- ranged from the dimensions of Solomon's Temple to a method of reckoning the date of Easter to the elucidation of Biblical symbols. "Newton was one of the last great Renaissance men," the curators observe, "a thinker who worked in mathematics, physics, optics, alchemy, history, theology, and the interpretation of prophecy and saw connections between them all." The 21st-century prejudice that religion invariably "subverts science" is refuted by the extraordinary figure who managed to discover the composition of light, deduce the laws of motion, invent calculus, compute the speed of sound, and define universal gravitation, all while believing deeply in the "domination of an intelligent and powerful Being." Far from subverting his scientific integrity, the exhibition notes, "Newton's piety served as one of his inspirations to study nature and what we today call science."

For Newton, it was axiomatic that religious inquiry and scientific investigation complemented each other. There were truths to be found in both of the "books" authored by God, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature -- or as Francis Bacon called them, the "book of God's word" and the "book of God's works." To study the world empirically did not mean abandoning religious faith. On the contrary: The more deeply the workings of Creation were understood, the closer one might come to the Creator. In the language of the 19th Psalm, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

To be sure, religious dogma can be a blindfold, blocking truths from those who refuse to see them. Scientific dogma can have the same effect. Neither faith nor reason can answer every question. As Newton knew, the surer path to wisdom is the one that has room for both.

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 22, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/education...reason?mode=PF

Isn't it interesting that the same people who would point to the conflict between faith and science would hold Newton up as a great scientist?

[Rhabbi]

Ok, so my assumption was wrong. That's good. I explained the reason why I don't chose to call myself agnostic even though I don't deny the supernatural. The definitions of atheist and agnostic goes a lot deeper than that and they're both huge families of various faiths. And they also float in and out of each other. Just like there's huge families of various Christian faiths and their view on the super-natural apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

The only overlap between an atheist and an agnostic comes because the atheist does not believe what he says. I have often said that I never met an honest atheist, and I still hold to that. There is no way you can prove there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative. If you are honest you have to call yourself agnostic.

[TomOfSweden]

For those who have trouble believing that men of faith can be scientists. I received this from a Christian Group I am a member of.



By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 22, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/education...reason?mode=PF

Isn't it interesting that the same people who would point to the conflict between faith and science would hold Newton up as a great scientist?

1) Physics is not a very controversial subject any longer. The pope bent over and took it in the ass a looooong time ago.

2) Maybe he is a great teacher and has understood to keep his personal convictions separate from actually doing his job.

3) When Newton was alive the evolution of science was at a radically different place. It was way before Shopenhaur, Nietzsche and Thomas Khun. In the age of Newton a supernatural god was still the scientifically best way to explain the nature of the world. Science evolves.

4) Maybe it's not true. It sounds a bit strange that a guy with those kinds of beliefs could be hired to a position like that. Being a fundamentalist of any sort should discount him from any kind of scholarly position anywhere. I'm guessing the journalist had a go at creativity.

[Rhabbi]

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

Yes, not only does the observer affect the experiment, he actually determines the outcome of it.

The theory is that a single photon will actually pass through two holes in a paper, thus producing an interference pattern with it self when passing through a prism. Although this sounds totally impossible to us who have learned to think in the macro physicists are actively pursuing ways to make this happen. The biggest problem is that if anyone actually observes the experiment the photon will always choose to go through one hole or the other. This means that the physicists actually have to determine how to observe this phenomenon without actually observing it, thus circumventing Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle.