If so, then the difference between science and religion is that religion stops at that point.
(Science goes on to test its “answers” and to change them as needed, only to test them further beyond that. Religion, including the soft, fuzzy religion evident in this thread makes up the answers and then proceeds to just “know” them in its gut.)
Actually science studies lots of subjective experiences. My daughter is getting a PhD doing exactly this. You can examine them through reporting of them by the person, and by looking at what a person does. For instance, the subjective experience of the value that a person puts on an object can be studied by seeing what they would take to sell or buy that object.
And by the way, let me the first to explicitly ask you - cite? What specific physics books tell you that the unified field is omnipresent - let alone omniscient, which I’d love to hear. I don’t remember ever reading this, but I don’t read “Vague misunderstandings of physics for spiritual people who want to pretend science supports their mumbo jumbo.”
Here is how it really works. If you come up with a hypothesis, first you search the literature to see if someone else came up with it, and falsified it, saving you the time. Next you figure out a way to prove your hypothesis wrong. Then you start the experiment. If your hypothesis is proved wrong, you don’t publish it.
Contrast to the spiritual and religious people who find some anecdotal support and publish. Case in point: I’m in a writing group with a woman who is writing a book on some form of woo. While it is inappropriate to say it was BS, I thought it was appropriate to suggest that she say something about why her particular technique is better than others, and maybe even a logical defense of why it works.
The reaction I got was pure astonishment. It appears that in the spiritual world each work exists by itself, supported purely by anecdote, and people don’t even think of comparing methods, let alone testing them. Another woman in the group said she has read over 100 of these things. Exactly. There is no good reason to read 100 cosmology books because there will be at most one or two views from books written at the same time. Clearly there are 100 different ways to spiritual fulfillment - none of which really work or else the better will overwhelm the worst.
That’s right, your associating input with output, sensory information with motor information but your missing the point. Despite the fact that science can explain every aspect of the process from input to output, it still cannot explain the subjective experience (qualia) - it’s not neccessary for a scientific description yet it exists as a very real aspect of subjective experience, something the requires an explanation.
Don’t take my word for it. The Three Laws of Qualia
You misunderstand me, Czarcasm, I have no problem with humble honest-to-goodness atheists, or their beliefs. While I do not share them, I fundementally believe anyone should have the (God given - HAH!) right to believe all they wish so long as it does not harm another in some way.
My base question is innocent enough - what drives the atheist. My further comments are not to disprove you at all - not at all - I am simply a tinkerer observing what makes a clock tick based on the very limited (my own knowledge and experiences) set of tools.
And what have you learned?
Is there any reason to believe that the things that drive you are different from the things that drive an atheist?
That was a beautiful way to explain it!
Why does your eye see blue? The spectrum of light.
Why do you love a painter’s painting containing blue? No science can answer that.
Not nearly! I grew up in a non judging family that loves me - supporting me in all I do, I have a wonderful girlfriend, a steady job, glorious future prospects. But philosophy tends to set me blue sometimes, especially in the Autumn months. Love my life though and wouldn’t trade it.
Seems the wrong question, really. What drives the theist? Plenty of theists through history didn’t particularly feel driven by their theism.
A notable one is Einstein. While he did profess a general sort of agnosticism, he also believed firmly in determinism - that our drives, desires, etc were established by the laws of the universe and that any such religiously motivated drive was itself only an expression of immutable laws over which we had no real control. He himself did not profess that his personal religious beliefs motivated him in such a fashion.
So it seems that really the assumptions underlying the original OP are themselves suspect. While theism can offer a purpose or drive to life, it does not necessarily have to do so.
And if that’s the case, what gives such a purpose to the theists who don’t believe it derives from their theism? And can the same such motivation extend also to atheists?
Cite? 
But seriously, a determinist (whether theist or not) could simply say that the answer has not yet been found, not that it cannot be found.
I have learned that for the most part their motivations are the same, at least compared to myself, minus the excitement at the prospect of an afterlife of some sort.
There was a reason to believe they might have different drives - they have a different faith (or lack thereof). I ask because I am not atheist and cannot know the feelings of another. To me there is more peace in understanding than ignorance.
Can religion?
edited to add: If religion is there to answer the questions that science can’t handle, what is the answer to the above question?
I don’t know if religion can, but it somehow comforts me to know that there are some things like that that science can’t answer. I suppose religion’s answer would be the soul. And I suppose science’s answer would be artifacts from evolution, but that doesn’t seem to satisfy the question to me.
And how does that excitement “drive” you? Is there something that you do because you believe an afterlife is coming?
I would hypothesize that they are the same. Then again, I do not believe their is an afterlife or a god, so I would anticipate the null hypothesis, wouldn’t I?
I agree.Which is why I, an atheist, feel a lil sorry for you, a theist.
But I thought religion was for answering questions that science couldn’t handle? Please point out questions that religion is singularly capable of handling, and the answers that only religion could possibly provide.
You can start with The Tao of Physics.
You don’t always need a book to tell you what to think.
And where in that book is quantum physics discussed?
[Quote=Wikipedia]
According to the preface of the first edition, reprinted in subsequent editions, Capra struggled to reconcile theoretical physics and Eastern mysticism and was at first “helped on my way by ‘power plants’” or psychedelics, with the first experience “so overwhelming that I burst into tears, at the same time, not unlike Castaneda, pouring out my impressions to a piece of paper.” (p. 12, 4th ed.)
[/quote]
Yep-that’s some background in science you’ve got there, sWozzAres.
Damn, you mean I could have skipped 4 years of college physics and learned it all from a single book?? AND gotten to take psychedelic drugs too??? :smack:
You are confusing experiencing the subjective experience of another person with explaining it. We cannot experience the inside of a singularity but we can describe it mathematically to some extent.
Your claim was
and that is demonstrably untrue. Unless you are claiming that all sorts of psychological activity do not constitute subjective experiences. Heck, we’ve even found the part of the brain which lets us experience what happens to other people as if it were happening to us.
Well, isn’t that enough to be going on with? What do you need belief for?