That’s exactly the book I was mentioning - with a slightly different title.
Two things sounding the same do not mean they are the same. It is as important to find why someone comes to a conclusion as it is to see what the conclusion is. For instance, the Greek and Roman atomicists were correct that all matter is composed of atoms - but their arguments are no more valid than their opponents. They got lucky, so we remember them. Hindus, unlike the Bible, believe the universe is very old - but they have no more evidence for it than the writer of Genesis.
You don’t have to tell me about the flaws of books - I have a book review column in a technical journal, and my wife has published about a dozen (none self-published.) All better than this one, though not as well selling, alas.
No, it’s not a competition, some kind of war between religion and science. They both co-exist. It’s more about being open-minded. You can believe in things only if they can be proven, or you can believe in everything until dis-proven, no matter how ridiculous it might seem. Wormholes, action at a distance, many worlds - how are these any different to “man in the sky” - they are equally unbelievable, unproven and probably unprovable.
Ultimately, belief isn’t the search for an absolute truth, it’s about finding things that empower you in your everyday life. As long as they make sense to you and enable you to lead a happy and fullfilled existence then you have been successful.
Religion simply provides “off the shelf” belief systems, they free us from having to spend all our time searching for answers and more time searching for food. If they work for you then use them, otherwise you are free to create your own belief system, if you feel the need and have the time.
I guess in a sense science it geared toward providing a universal objective belief system grounded in fact by using proof. You might not like what it has to say, since it all likelyhood it will relegate you to an illusion and this wouldn’t be conducive to social cohesion.
Are you sure science can’t answer this question? It hasn’t yet, to the best of my knowledge, but I’m not aware of anyone who has studied it. People have studied they types of faces which are most attractive, which is a similar problem. We haven’t yet been able to penetrate the brain to measure what goes on when you see blue in a painting - but there is no reason to think that doing this is impossible.
Sure - read a random collection of books (not actually understanding them is a plus) collect some anecdotes, and write a book of woo - and you might have made more money than either of us do. You could just tell yourself it was spiritually true so you could look at yourself in the mirror.
“Action at a distance” (which doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means) has been the subject of experiment. Wormholes are a possible outcome of the math - but haven’t been observed yet, and are just a hypothesis. There is more justification for either than for any man in the sky.
And oddly enough the belief system echoes what our parents believe or how we get indoctrinated. And science is not a belief system - every part of it, especially that it works, is tested over and over.
You’ve already been told this, but using proof the way you do indicates that you don’t understand anything about how science works. There was nothing more solid in science than Newton’s Laws. If anything could have been said to have proved they were. Yet physics rejected them as universal laws in favor of relativity almost overnight, because relativity explained stuff that they didn’t.
Science works through tentative acceptance of the correctness of theories.
No I am not confusing anything, I suggest it it you that doesn’t understand the nature of the problem of qualia, knowing someone with a phd in the subject doesn’t endow you with that knowledge! Read the paper and learn something interesting - that’s what it’s all about.
Oh and constantly telling me what I am thinking and what I know is overly arrogant, your in no position to make that judgement and it’s not conducive to conversation.
I’m not objecting to the specific issue in the paper, which I was well aware of. To quote Firesign Theater, when Mr. Tirebiter - auctioning off stuff - says “Do I hear” a bid?, Pico Alvarado says “That’s metaphysically absurd, man. How do I know what you hear?”
But one example (or even two) of not being able to know subjective information does not mean that science cannot study any - which was your claim.
There are issues with testability. It’s perfectly possible (leaving aside ethical considerations for a moment) to send test subjects to the great beyond after they have followed one of these 100 paths… the problem is in documenting the findings.
Not really, I said that it cannot even start to address questions of subjective experience which could have been phrased better, but I then went on to explain how it studies subjective experience - so to conclude that I said it doesn’t study any suggests your’e not paying attention. I was thinking more about the questions that science isn’t aware even need answering, yet are an essential aspect of subjective experience.
The point being that science, as we understand it today, cannot provide all the answers because it doesn’t recognize all the questions, therefore for certain questions it cannot make a start on answering them.
Haven’t read the entire thread so second part may be repeating others.
As for what drives me: chemistry. Just as I’ve seen nothing that gives me any reason to assume the existence of a god, afterlife or any other supernatural entity, I haven’t even seen anything that gives me reason to assume the existence of free will.
I’m completely ok with the idea that any perception of “drive” I have is a fiction of chemistry.
As for what I perceive as driving me through life, giving it a “purpose” (which, again, I don’t believe living has) it is boredom. I just want to experience new things so set about to do those things that will allow me to achieve that. I don’t care if I cease to exist when I die, I don’t care if anybody remembers me after I’m dead, I don’t care that the accumulation of my experiences will ultimately mean nothing. I’m cool with it.
Frankly, when I hear what people believe about the afterlife I’m amazed that they aren’t all killing themselves to get there sooner (though of course, this is why suicide is a sin).
This is why I don’t use the word agnostic. Technically I am fine attaching that word to myself. I have no reason to assume the existence of a god and I live my life entirely as if one does not exist. But of course that doesn’t mean they don’t. I’m agnostic as to the existence of god (though pragmatically live my life atheistically).
However, so many people who label themselves as agnostic, as you appear to do here, don’t seem to define it as open on the question of whether god exists but rather that they are open on the question as to the nature of god. Which, of course, begs the question.
So I just label myself an atheist because I’d prefer to separate myself from the people who say “I don’t follow any religion because I’m not so egotistical as to believe I know the face of god, but there is definitely something watching and even directing us all” than from the people who say “there is definitely no god so you’re all stupidheads.”
I might have quoted the entire post; it’s beautiful. I envy you the hiking! (It’s good out here, but semi-arid.)
I can respect the philosophical search for an “ultimate purpose.” There is a definite appeal to it. I won’t scorn someone for entering into that search.
The scorn comes when they say, “I have found it! God is named Theophractus and he lives in the Silver City! When we die he puts us in robot bodies and we turn the gears of the heavens forever!”
The search for wisdom is wonderful, but, by and large, the people who say they have actually found it tend to be the farthest behind in the search.
Socrates was right. “I don’t know” is the highest admission of wisdom.
You are imposing an absurd restriction on the study of subjective experiences. You might as well say that astronomers can’t study stars, since we only see light and other electromagnetic radiation years, centuries or millennia in transit, distorted by cosmic dust or gravitational lensing.
We don’t have direct access to subjective experience, and no one is claiming we do. We have very good indirect access, both from reports of subjective experiences and from the impact of them on other activities. Or do you reject the entire field of experimental psychology?
I wasn’t talking about truth, I am talking about belief. Action at a distance is, for most people initially, unbelievable regardless of it’s truth. As with all things that are unbelievable, you can gain knowledge and change your conception of the world to a point where it becomes believable. You have expanded your mind and provided a place for this new knowledge to go, and it fits so you accept it.
Alas, the same applies to the “man in the sky”, if you change your conception of God then this too becomes believable, not in a literal sense, since it’s an analogy but once you recognize that it has to be an analogy then you can shed all the “silly nonsense” that you think has been taught you and replace it with something that makes sense to you. The message stays the same, only the language changes.
Theist: God is in the box. Atheist: The box is empty. Scientist: I’ve opened the box and there’s nothing visible or measurable inside. Theist: Thus proving that God is inscrutable! Atheist: :smack:
Alternatively: