Science and religion

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Anyway, I don't pretend that a simple sign solves it all. At the same time I do believe that at times God has and does reveal Himself in ways that demand a logical and rational response.

Well, I think that if by God or by natural processes the basic operations of the universe remain consistent, then we should judge all things rationally or no things rationally. If God operates inconsistently (like establishing laws of nature and then violating them with miracles), then we'll never know when to be rational and when not to. The third possibility is that it's our own reason that's faulty, and we must always question what we think we understand.[/quote]

PS. I can give a non-hypthetical example of such a situation that has been important one to me, if you're interested.

Please share it.

Originally Posted by Fido

If you see something, does that not equate to knowing it.

No, not at all. The rote sensory experience of seeing something in no way depends on all of the organizing and associating functions of consciousness that contribute to knowing something.

Originally Posted by dpmartin

Aedes
i realy hope this helps:

You know if it is God’s Will that man should know Him then the only way that man can know God is that God would reveal Himself to you, which on one hand "why it shouldn't be incumbent upon God to reveal himself to humans?" is a valid question. But on the other hand you have to ask my friend you have to ask Him. Been there. My plea was God I don’t know any one who knows you. Problem resolved, tho I did not expect an answer, nor did I look for those who did, after I asked. If you ask He will answer. Which I hope explains "explain rationally why it's incumbent upon humans to discover God, " not necessarily required to discover, but ask in sincerity.

May the Good Lord be with you

I value your point of view on the matter, and I respect your beliefs. Deep down I feel that if people are good to one another, then whether or not God's inspiration is at the heart of their actions, we can all live the ideal of godliness however the world appears to us, whether there is a God in the end or not. And if there is a God, and if there is a judgement, I hope we are judged on how good we were to other people more than how much devotion or belief we showed.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

No, not at all. The rote sensory experience of seeing something in no way depends on all of the organizing and associating functions of consciousness that contribute to knowing something.

How far are you going to make an issue of an experience independent on all the organizing and associating functions of consciousness. Perhaps you should be ignored and should ignore yourself.

Have you ever considered that presidential candidate -Dennis Kusinich who admitted to seeing a UFO? LIke; What the hell is that? I don't know. I can't identify it. But I saw it. -And those high priced press people had a big yuck about that. Why? Should he have lied? Said nothing, perhaps? Does seeing a UFO mean you believe in moon men? The point is, I have never seen one, but I have seen all kinds of crap fall out of space from little motes to huge showers. The fact is that I have seen worse things, after a fashion. I see the death that comes out of industry and foreign policy. I see the lies and the corruption that come out of washington. I see the terrible obscene grasping for power among our religious institutions, and sure, I'll tell you what I see; but I would rather be ignored than make an issue of it. How does that song go? Every body knows, that's the way it goes, and everybody Knows. When everyone has as their sole defense the ability to deny reality, or to deny consequences based upon their ignorance, how bad should anyone want to rip the veil off of anyones eyes? People will figure things out for themselves. Why kill yourself delivering the news?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

How far are you going to make an issue of an experience independent on all the organizing and associating functions of consciousness.

Enough insofar as to distinguish seeing from knowing.

Perhaps you should be ignored and should ignore yourself.

Perhaps.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Enough insofar as to distinguish seeing from knowing.

That is easier said than done. What people say they know, depending upon the person, usually requires an abundance of evidence, and yet, any amount of proof of what may be invisible does not equate to knowledge. Knowledge is never absolute, but reality is absolutly what it is, and experience of reality visually- is as essential as any other sense. So seeing is believing if only because we cannot begin to know what we cannot see. It is not unusual to have ignorance equated to blindness, and wisdom equated to sight.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

What people say they know, depending upon the person, usually requires an abundance of evidence, and yet, any amount of proof of what may be invisible does not equate to knowledge.

Lest you forget, you are the one who proposed that seeing is knowing and then went down a logical argument based on that presupposition. Are you contradicting that now?

reality is absolutly what it is, and experience of reality visually- is as essential as any other sense. So seeing is believing if only because we cannot begin to know what we cannot see.

Are you now equating believing with knowing?

Irrespective of what reality absolutely is, our faculty of vision presents us with a very limited slice of that reality. Our high acuity vision has a narrow angle of view, we can only see light between ~ 400 and 700 nm wavelength, only of a limited dynamic range (around a 2^12-fold range of intensity, or ~ 12 "stops" in photographic terms), etc. Furthermore, our ability to recognize something depends on the amount of time we see it, whether it's obstructed or not, and how intense our attention to it is.

So what we see with our eyes is some sort of distillation of reality, but it's physiologically limited from the very beginning, and this all occurs before we begin to think about what we've actually seen.

Finally, we have senses that are much more in tune with reality (i.e. less prone to error) than vision.

1. Proprioception: I know where my fingers are. If I lift one hand above my head I know that it's up there whether I can see it or not. If I extend two fingers I know which two I've extended.

2. Balance and equilibrium: I know if I'm at rest; I know if I'm accelerating; I know if I'm changing directions; I know if I'm tipping over.

3. Position: I know if I'm right-side up. I know if I'm upside-down.

These are DIFFERENT than the sense of "touch" (they're both neurologically and functionally different), and there is far less room for flawed interpretation than there is with vision, especially fleeting visions of things that are unfamiliar to us.

[dpmartin]

On the matter of Faith (mentioned a few postings back), Knowledge, and I will throw in obedience, reason being that I believe the word trust instead of( faith/obedience) is better because of religion’s hack job on the meaning of faith in the world. If you trust something you response with an action. It has been state by Apostle Paul:
" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

If you trust, or trusted your parents when it came to dealing with things in the world such as staying out of trouble, or how to handle things on your own, though you did not yet experience what you are told of, if you trusted your parents you would respond to such things as they said, and got the result that they said you would. (This is excluding any malfunction in this area such as lousy parents).

The Lord, Jesus the Christ came and said. If you trust the Word of God then you will respond. Faith is not blind, faith requires the knowledge (as in given by the parent). How are you to know what to do without the knowledge? Is it not wiser to learn then do, then do find and out your wrong and pay the price, or loss out. In the case of the scripture above Paul goes on to use the examples of the OT people of faith or trust in God’s Word. In other words trusting God’s Word is to respond as if you know it’s the Truth.

Jesus witnessed God the Father as the Son to the world so that the world may know God. If you don’t trust what Jesus said then how could He have done that which He did if what He said is not true.

[Didymos Thomas]

How, again, is your parent's knowledge your knowledge? Certainly, they can give well considered suggestion, but how will you know what it is to have a hangover if you never have one? How will you know that loving your neighbor is good, if you do not love your neighbor?

Trust is not the whole of faith. Trust is part of the practice of faith, to trust others and to trust yourself. But Trust cannot replace knowing.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Lest you forget, you are the one who proposed that seeing is knowing and then went down a logical argument based on that presupposition. Are you contradicting that now?

Not really. That is the difference between religion and science. If you don't believe in joimes, science will magnify them. If you don't believe in God, no power of magnification will prove a thing.

Are you now equating believing with knowing?

Not really, but believing is in no sense diminished by knowing. To believe what there is no evidence for is difficult. The great value of myth in all cultures is that it gives an explanation of why things are as they are. Why the bear has no tail is as useful as the seven day creation. And there needs to be no great detail. The world of creation only has to be this world, and in the sense that it does not match, the myth is in trouble.

Irrespective of what reality absolutely is, our faculty of vision presents us with a very limited slice of that reality. Our high acuity vision has a narrow angle of view, we can only see light between ~ 400 and 700 nm wavelength, only of a limited dynamic range (around a 2^12-fold range of intensity, or ~ 12 "stops" in photographic terms), etc. Furthermore, our ability to recognize something depends on the amount of time we see it, whether it's obstructed or not, and how intense our attention to it is.

I agree with this. We do not see everything, and yet we can sense a degree of reflected light from the matter we are about. Let me put it this way. You may not see everything that is there, but how often do you run into matter that is there that you can't see is there unless you have had six for the ditch. Sight corresponds to reality. Computers have made a farce of photographic evidence. We have other explainations of visions; but seeing is believing as a first step to knowing.

So what we see with our eyes is some sort of distillation of reality, but it's physiologically limited from the very beginning, and this all occurs before we begin to think about what we've actually seen.

Finally, we have senses that are much more in tune with reality (i.e. less prone to error) than vision.

1. Proprioception: I know where my fingers are. If I lift one hand above my head I know that it's up there whether I can see it or not. If I extend two fingers I know which two I've extended.

2. Balance and equilibrium: I know if I'm at rest; I know if I'm accelerating; I know if I'm changing directions; I know if I'm tipping over.

3. Position: I know if I'm right-side up. I know if I'm upside-down.

These are DIFFERENT than the sense of "touch" (they're both neurologically and functionally different), and there is far less room for flawed interpretation than there is with vision, especially fleeting visions of things that are unfamiliar to us.

I would suggest that these are gross sensitivities compared to vision, but not inessential. These senses normally work together, and help people to sense when reality is out of balance. If I may give you an example. I have always had trouble with my ears, sinuses, and balance. Yet, I am a retired Ironworker who used to walk that high Iron. I don't want to suggest that I fall over in the dark, but I get conflicting information from my ears, and so always kept my balance by sight. To have a welding hood come down accidently while crossing a beam has cost men their lives, and put others in the hole. I want to tell you, there is nothing worse in my case, other than standing on top of a column, connecting, having to look into a clear blue sky for a piece of iron coming on the hook with nothing more than the sun for orientation. I hope life never demands such courage from me again. I don't know how I did it.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

How, again, is your parent's knowledge your knowledge? Certainly, they can give well considered suggestion, but how will you know what it is to have a hangover if you never have one? How will you know that loving your neighbor is good, if you do not love your neighbor?

Trust is not the whole of faith. Trust is part of the practice of faith, to trust others and to trust yourself. But Trust cannot replace knowing.

If you had three times the computers and twice the fingers and you multiplied each by nine do you think you could communicate to one with out a mind? Faith is easy. It is the lazy man's knowledge. Everyone with some gumption doesn't stop askin with the first answer.

[Didymos Thomas]

I have trouble calling faith the lazy man's knowledge. Faith implies knowledge. How can you have faith that is not arbitrary if you have no understanding of your faith?

Faith seems very difficult. How many times did Jesus reprimand someone for having too little faith?