Science, Subjectivity, And Paradigms

[mfbukowski]

Species is a (very useful) concept that is not clear cut in nature. I think I get your point though. Before we discovered the dinosaurs, did they exist? Of course they did. However, I think it would have been unwise to assume they existed, before the evidence came in. Similarly, we may think it logical that life outside our planet exists (based on an estimated probability of life emerging, and the number of planets in the universe) BUT until we find it, no body is going to say what it looks like, or how it works. We just simply don't know.

But neither of those examples sounds like religion to me. Religious people often say that they *know*. They know their god exists. They know Joseph Smith was a prophet etc. etc. They are willing to die, and in some cases, kill others for this. They say this without the objective evidence to show me that it is true. They tell me that the universe was created by a being *very similar to myself* and that I existed before this life, without being able to show me.

These are all incredibly bold claims, with nothing but a subjective feeling people feel? To defend such beliefs with "well you can't PROVE I am wrong yet... so I will keep believing" is frustratingly ignorant.

It's like the lady who believed the Universe rested on the back of a giant see turtle. We don't need to be able to see the universe from an outside perspective to tell her she is (a real stickler would say probably) wrong.

I would tell her she is wrong, even knowing that there is a tiny tiny chance she is correct, but we just don't live our lives that way. When she proves it- I will believe it.

In the same way, when religions objectively prove that there is a god, then I will be the first to accept it and move on. But to do so before such evidence seems utterly unreasonable. I know a common response for this is that "Well god doesn't want to be proved objectively, it's about faith". If that puts your mind at ease, then fine. But I am smart enough to realize that such a cop out would work for a vast range of absurd ideas. The only difference with this absurd idea is that a lot of people in my daily interactions take it seriously.

As of yet though, I have yet to see religious people take the discussion to objective means. It's not as if at least some of the questions out of reach of the scientific method. Here's a few:

Does prayer really effect the weather?

Does the priesthood really heal people?

Are prophets able to speak to the creator of the Universe in a way that I can not?

etc. etc. These are scientific questions that may not "prove" anything conclusively, but it would at least be a start to the discussion.

I think that statements about what one "knows" are statements about one's personal level of certainty and don't really say anything about the "external world" whatever that means in itself. All we know about the "external world" is what we ourselves seen AND what other humans have observed.

We cannot get "out" of human experience, unless we are not human, and that raises real questions about what else could be "real".

The question of whether or not dinosaurs "existed" before they were "discovered" (did America exist before it was discovered?) is moot, precisely because they had no human SIGNIFICANCE or meaning before they were discovered.

After they were discovered, they have had huge significance, because we have had to invent explanations for what those bones are and why they are there. Go to any evolution thread on this board and you will see the significance that discovery has had.

But before there was a human context- before they were "discovered" those bones, if you want to say they existed or not, had no importance or significance to humans whatsoever.

But neither of those examples sounds like religion to me. Religious people often say that they *know*. They know their god exists. They know Joseph Smith was a prophet etc. etc. They are willing to die, and in some cases, kill others for this. They say this without the objective evidence to show me that it is true. They tell me that the universe was created by a being *very similar to myself* and that I existed before this life, without being able to show me.

When I look at this statement, it appears to me that you do not fully grasp what is being said here, but let me tell you I really have to honestly compliment you for trying. It really does require a central paradigm shift that is so easy for me, having thought this way now for 40 years or so, that I cannot go "back" to your understanding of "reality". Incidentally, I made that paradigm shift many years before joining the church.

Note the first sentence in the quote immediately above. What "sounds like religion" is your subjective evaluation and definition of what defines religion. It is not necessarily what religion "is" to everyone- just to you. It is your own subjective understanding.

There are several right here on this thread who see it as I do, and others who Walker has referred to who share that understanding, that religion has nothing to do with the "objective" state of affairs we would all agree about, but has to do with the significance we personally give those observations we make.

One can have certainty about many things, but it is unwise to question one's certainty about what someone else is certain about.

At this point perhaps all that can be asked is that you look at this paradigm shift and evaluate it for yourself.

Have you read any Kuhn? Not a bad starting point! Walker, I know will be full of sources for that one!

Edit: Oh and as for the world being created by a being very much like you- indeed it was if you can make that paradigm shift. The world was created by putting it into a human context- and guess what- that is represented- literally or not- in the LDS view of God as Man.

You may have been taught that in a more fundamentalist way, but the significance of God being a Man goes much farther than I think you suspect at this point

[WalkerW]

A recent criticism of my article:

I find it interesting that you would call quantum mechanics “meta-physics”. You clearly have no idea what quantum mechanics is. Its foundations are in mathematics and objective experimentation. It simply dictates that all things on a very small scale are governed by fundamental probabilities. There’s not a touch of meta-physics or mysticism in to it. Quantum mechanics is the least compatible with religion of the modern theories of physics. The end of subjective science came with Newton and his regime of mathematics leading to and explaining observations and experiments. You should take some courses on the subject before spouting your pseudoscientific ideas. Subjective science has been minimized to near extinction for a reason; it tends to be outright wrong.

My response:

I find it interesting that you would call quantum mechanics “meta-physics”.

I didn’t, but I can see how you would interpret it that way. The comments on positivism and quantum mechanics just happened to be grouped in printing. I had four separate examples of changes over the century: (1) Emotional intelligence, (2) Intrinsic motivation, (3) Philosophy, (4) Quantum mechanics. You are conflating the last two where I am not.

Quantum mechanics is the least compatible with religion of the modern theories of physics.

You are using “religion” in such an abstract way that I don’t even know what this means.

The end of subjective science came with Newton and his regime of mathematics leading to and explaining observations and experiments.

I find it odd that you appeal to Newton in your comments about quantum physics. I also love how you talk of “the end of subjective science,” while in the same sentence speak of “explaining observations.” My point in claiming that “the objective and subjective always overlap” is that the reductionist, mechanical approach that was influenced by both classical mechanics and positivist philosophy is no longer viable. Your attempt to label it as “mysticism” tells us more about your own ideologies and prejudices than mine. Though, ironically, experiments in neuroplasticity have been conducted with Buddhist monks due to their meditative and “mystical” practices.

You should take some courses on the subject before spouting your pseudoscientific ideas.

Considering your entire argument is based on a misreading, I would suggest not being so brash in your criticisms. However, I am curious: out of my examples, which ones exactly are pseudoscientific? Is emotional intelligence not an accepted factor of intelligence? Is intrinsic motivation not an aspect of human motivation? Did positivism not collapse in the mid-20th century? Has quantum mechanics not changed the way we understand the material universe?

Subjective science has been minimized to near extinction for a reason; it tends to be outright wrong.

One way to interpret “subjective” is that of personal experience and observation. “Objective” would therefore be that of common experience and observation. Or perhaps “subjective” is personal experience and interpretation, while “objective” is that which is independent of personal experience and interpretation. Either way, once a human being attempts to engage the objective world and communicate it, his/her subjectivity is automatically involved. The changes of the last century I think have made us (or at least given us reason to be) more aware of this. In my opinion, self-awareness is a good thing and aids in making us more “objective.” Don’t misinterpret my article as advocating some kind of New Age spiritualism.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

No, you are just trying to be cute. You are trying to put a scientific patina on a theological question.

I fully believe God can and does work through natural means to achieve his goals. Whether it is delivery of rain to a parched land, or giving man the wisdom to develop irrigation. Whether to cure a fever in a sick small child directly, or the wisdom given to men to invent and use aspirin. It is all the same to me.

You are in essence trying to "prove" there is a God. I know of no way to do that using any instruments of science(which I have stated many times). It is in essence the same thing as trying to prove to me that your mother loves you.

[mfbukowski]

What evidence do you have that "God does respond to prayers to change the weather?" How are you certain that it was god changing the weather rather then a natural, meteorlogical force as an explanation for the change in weather?

Yep

It all depends on how you look at it doesn't it? God works through nature, it just depends if you want to see the human dimension in creating your perceptions of nature or not.

You get to see it subjectively or objectively- your choice.

But I apologize for dominating the thread- I tend to do that.

I will shut up now for a bit!

[Walden]

Yep

It all depends on how you look at it doesn't it? God works through nature, it just depends if you want to see the human dimension in creating your perceptions of nature or not.

You get to see it subjectively or objectively- your choice.

But I apologize for dominating the thread- I tend to do that.

I will shut up now for a bit!

But why add an extra layer of "subjective" explanation when the objective explanation works just fine? The simple, objective, natural explanation is quite sufficient, no need to inject it with other-worldly explanations, especially those that can be sufficiently explained with the objective evidence that we now have.

[mfbukowski]

A recent criticism of my article:

Yep, the same old criticisms from people who don't get the paradigm shift.

I think we LDS are in an excellent position to champion a whole new way of looking at religion based on the notion that God is the Man of Holiness who "organizes" (not "creates") the worlds and all that is in them, as well as all the meaning behind that.

That was the total genius I saw in the Church's paradigm when I joined the church.

No one- but no one- else thinks that way. But perhaps helping LDS people see the strength of their own position will be the hardest part.

Now I really do promise to shut up for a while!

[mfbukowski]

But why add an extra layer of "subjective" explanation when the objective explanation works just fine? The simple, objective, natural explanation is quite sufficient, no need to inject it with other-worldly explanations, especially those that can be sufficiently explained with the objective evidence that we now have.

Because it falsely pretends that there is "something out there" which has no human significance and which Human(s) did not organize. THAT world which we cannot experience IS the "other world"- I believe nothing exists which humans cannot see or feel.

Do you believe in some world we have not organized which cannot be seen or felt?- All we have is human experience- you cannot get out of it, and pretending just doesn't get you there.

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

Occam's Razor, while useful in certain limited applications, is not all that useful when dealing with human emotions or actions. Which can be and generally are very circuitous.

[Eldwynn]

We cannot get "out" of human experience, unless we are not human, and that raises real questions about what else could be "real".

When I look at this statement, it appears to me that you do not fully grasp what is being said here, but let me tell you I really have to honestly compliment you for trying. It really does require a central paradigm shift that is so easy for me, having thought this way now for 40 years or so, that I cannot go "back" to your understanding of "reality". Incidentally, I made that paradigm shift many years before joining the church.

Surely you don't believe that things you can not understand do not exist. Ultraviolet light? I could not put my head around how LONG 100 million years is, without science showing me. I don't understand how light can be both a wave and a particle at the same time, without science showing me. I don't understand quantum mechanics, because I live in a world of MASSIVE objects.

Yet I believe them all to be true, even if I can't experience it. I don't know what electricity looks like subjectively, but science has shown me what it does. These things- despite having no subjective experience. DO exist. If something does not have the objective piece, but only the subjective piece, I do not find it reasonable to think it exists, outside my mind.

What if I proposed a theory that did not match observations. Something crazy like- illness is the result of your body being out of sync with the energy of the universe. Disease is not caused by viruses or bacteria, but by a mismatch of energy in the cells. Thus, in order to be cured of your ailment, you need to see a trained practitioner, who after tapping on your head for multiple sessions, would heal you. Somehow this tapping would restore the energy to your body, and it would cure the disease.

This isn't hypothetical, or fictional. My mother believes every word I just wrote. Nothing will convince her otherwise. You may happen to agree with her, which would be rather unfortunate because my analogy would fall right on its face. However, when you take this "paradigm shift" then doesn't EVERYTHING with subjective value become "Real" at that point? That is the problem I have with what you are saying.

My subjective world works fine without god. Thus, can't I use your "paradigm shift" argument to say that he does not exist? I believe that science offers the only proposed way to sort through EVERY crazy idea. What exactly helps you sort through them?

The whole thing sounds like you are saying, that if something exists in your head, then it is real. If you imagine it, and it has value, then it becomes part of reality. However, not only can that argument be pointed right back against you (as I just did), but it also doesn't help when you use that "subjective reality" to explain things that happened in the "non0subjective" world. The world that exists outside our senses.

You claim that there is a god. Your evidence for this is not externally observable (I think is what you are saying), but based on your subjective experience of him. This is different than asking, for example, if panda bears exist, because you and I both can decide on a definition of a panda bear, and go out and find it (or in this day and age, look it up on a computer).

However, we can not do the same for god(I propose), because he lacks that objective evidence. This would be a lot like me saying, "Well I can imagine a Panda Bear that is naturally green with purple polka dots, and it makes perfect sense giving my worldview, so they exist in the same way that black and white pandas exist". Is that what you are proposing? I feel like I am missing something.

What exactly sets the existence of god (and all the other things you imply, such as our "spiritual" history, the belief that this creator created the universe etc.) apart from the crazy persons multi-colored pandas?

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn:

No, you are just trying to be cute. You are trying to put a scientific patina on a theological question.

I fully believe God can and does work through natural means to achieve his goals. Whether it is delivery of rain to a parched land, or giving man the wisdom to develop irrigation. Whether to cure a fever in a sick small child directly, or the wisdom given to men to invent and use aspirin. It is all the same to me.

You are in essence trying to "prove" there is a God. I know of no way to do that using any instruments of science(which I have stated many times). It is in essence the same thing as trying to prove to me that your mother loves you.

Im glad you can read my mind from so far away. Is it god that allows you to do that?

I don't understand how you can compare the existence of an intelligent being, with an emotion. You could reasonably prove that my mother existed- even if you can't (yet prove) say anything about whether she loves me.

My point was that there are things religious people believe that could be examined using the scientific method. It may not be the existence of an omnipotent ghost-like what Joseph Smith claims to have seen (you know, the guys looked exactly like Americans?) However, statement such as "the priesthood cures people (which many people believe) of illnesses" COULD be tested. It would at least be a start.

Do you believe that the power of the priesthood can heal? That is theoretically a scientific question we could talk about.

By the way, if we could agree on a definition of love, I don't think it impossible to objectively prove my mother loves me.

[Chris]

I haven't read the whole thread... so let me know if I'm just repeating what others have said. Sorry for my laziness.

I see some religious people say things like: "See science is subjective, therefore it's completely valid for religion to be subjective." I think the key difference is the data from which reliable science builds its theories are objective. Whereas, with the "prayer method" or "revelation method" the data (the actual emotional/spiritual experience) itself is subjective, never mind the method. This is problematic because how do we even begin to create a subjective standard to distinguish authentic spiritual experiences from purely human ones? And then taking it one step further, how do we correctly attribute those spiritual experiences to a specific external being?

[Chris]

You are in essence trying to "prove" there is a God. I know of no way to do that using any instruments of science(which I have stated many times). It is in essence the same thing as trying to prove to me that your mother loves you.

Be careful with such an analogy because you are equating a subjective thing (love) with an alleged objective thing (a god). If you hold to this analogy, then are you admitting that god is also as subjective as love is, that is only exists in your mind and not outside of yourself.

[mfbukowski]

Surely you don't believe that things you can not understand do not exist. Ultraviolet light? I could not put my head around how LONG 100 million years is, without science showing me. I don't understand how light can be both a wave and a particle at the same time, without science showing me. I don't understand quantum mechanics, because I live in a world of MASSIVE objects.

Yet I believe them all to be true, even if I can't experience it. I don't know what electricity looks like subjectively, but science has shown me what it does. These things- despite having no subjective experience. DO exist. If something does not have the objective piece, but only the subjective piece, I do not find it reasonable to think it exists, outside my mind.

What if I proposed a theory that did not match observations. Something crazy like- illness is the result of your body being out of sync with the energy of the universe. Disease is not caused by viruses or bacteria, but by a mismatch of energy in the cells. Thus, in order to be cured of your ailment, you need to see a trained practitioner, who after tapping on your head for multiple sessions, would heal you. Somehow this tapping would restore the energy to your body, and it would cure the disease.

This isn't hypothetical, or fictional. My mother believes every word I just wrote. Nothing will convince her otherwise. You may happen to agree with her, which would be rather unfortunate because my analogy would fall right on its face. However, when you take this "paradigm shift" then doesn't EVERYTHING with subjective value become "Real" at that point? That is the problem I have with what you are saying.

My subjective world works fine without god. Thus, can't I use your "paradigm shift" argument to say that he does not exist? I believe that science offers the only proposed way to sort through EVERY crazy idea. What exactly helps you sort through them?

The whole thing sounds like you are saying, that if something exists in your head, then it is real. If you imagine it, and it has value, then it becomes part of reality. However, not only can that argument be pointed right back against you (as I just did), but it also doesn't help when you use that "subjective reality" to explain things that happened in the "non0subjective" world. The world that exists outside our senses.

You claim that there is a god. Your evidence for this is not externally observable (I think is what you are saying), but based on your subjective experience of him. This is different than asking, for example, if panda bears exist, because you and I both can decide on a definition of a panda bear, and go out and find it (or in this day and age, look it up on a computer).

However, we can not do the same for god(I propose), because he lacks that objective evidence. This would be a lot like me saying, "Well I can imagine a Panda Bear that is naturally green with purple polka dots, and it makes perfect sense giving my worldview, so they exist in the same way that black and white pandas exist". Is that what you are proposing? I feel like I am missing something.

What exactly sets the existence of god (and all the other things you imply, such as our "spiritual" history, the belief that this creator created the universe etc.) apart from the crazy persons multi-colored pandas?

I'll make a more complete answer in the morning when I have a little time, but for now- just think about that there is no world which exists outside our collective senses.

All we can know is our own subjective observations, or our own subjective observations which others also have and we can talk about.

If I see a pink elephant, it might be a hallucination- but if you see it too, there is less chance it is an hallucination. If 50 people see it, it is starting to become "objective".

All that science IS is a whole bunch of people agreeing that they all had the same subjective experience, when they did thus and so, the "whatsis meter" said whatever it said, and that "proves" some hypothesis.

Now what if 13 million people say they have a "testimony that the church is true" because God has revealed it to them?

[WalkerW]

I plan on picking up Stuart Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (Basic Books, 2008) in the near future:

This type of movement is very exciting to me. I think it will be beneficial to both religious and non-religious alike.

Also check out Paul Davies, John Gribbin, The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality (Simon & Schuster, 1992). Kind of dated, but still good. I'm just about finished.

[elguanteloko]

As I see it, it's not a question of the subjective VERSUS the objective- they are just two points of view which we can have at different times about different things.

You can experience the objective? wow. please tell me how.

The points of view are governed by our language- we can either speak of how things appear to us individually ("I am hungry"- subjective; "I know the Book of Mormon is true"- subjective) or we can speak of things we all can observe independently and verify- ("There are penguins in Antarctica"- objective)

No relevant difference between those, mf. The "objective" is another word for what is easily agreed upon by other subjectivities.. but this is my "subjective" judgment anyways (and it can't be otherwise).

Statements we all can verify may be interesting, but they don't give meaning to our lives.

Your meaning starts from beliefs and beliefs start from accepted facts. Gasoline may or may not be said to get you to your house. Your car may or may not be said to get you to your house. The money you used may or may not be said to get you to your house. To say that "facts" don't give us meaning is like saying that the money you used to buy gas to put on your car to make it work to drive to your home didn't get you to your house: you couldn't get without it and that's what is relevant here.

We live our lives in the "subjective" mode- in sentences starting with the word "I" or variations thereof.

All statements about anything (non-propositions, too) are of this type ('subjective' - I put that in "scare quotes" because I reject the concept as it is used most of the times).

It is curious to me how people can get so confused about such a simple distinction. Many think that some archeological discovery for example (objective) could cause them personally to believe (subjective) that something is "true" when in fact there are always reasons to doubt objective observations- or really what that observation means.

The observation doesn't mean anything; you respond with meaning to it. That's your standard for disbelief? "We can doubt it"?

Would any archeological discovery "prove" that, say the Bible is doctrinally "true"? Suppose it were possible to absolutely prove scientifically that the "true cross" was found beyond any possible doubt, or perhaps that the Shroud of Turin was the actual shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.

Would that prove that he was the Savior and took his sins upon us and we will therefore be able to return to our Father?

Of course it wouldn't prove that- because we can only know that "subjectively"- inside of us- within us- within our hearts.

...and you can't doubt that, I suppose, for the same reasons you can doubt all the other "subjective interpretations" you end up rejecting.

Objective observation ultimately has nothing to do with how those observations affect us- THAT is what is important- the SIGNIFICANCE we ourselves find in what we see and observe- THAT is what has "importance" to us.

There is no significance without "observation" (though non-empirical most of the times). When you see yourself believing in God because of X, can you doubt that? What has to do with you believing something? In other words, why that belief and not another one that seems more plausible?

It's really very simple!

It actually seems pretty hard to understand and even harder to accept.

[Mordecai]

It's rather annoying that people take this quote so out of context. Einsteins point in this letter was never to endorse religious thinking as theists practice it. In the same letter he wrote:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this"

He valued faith, sure. He was a pantheist...

He repeatedly denied being a pantheist. He specifically said he was not. He said he was neither a pantheist nor an atheist and suggested he deserved the title of theist. He specifically and repeatedly spoke of an intelligence, or God, that designed the universe. He considered God to be an impersonal God, but he nonetheless believed. People like Dawkins have lied about him to hide that he believed in an actual intelligence behind the universe, but it's a fact, based on what he specifically said and how he spoke of God.

However, intelligent design or evolution guided by intelligence (or saying that god used evolution to create man)assumes intelligence...

No more than Darwinism assumes that mutations/life cycles occurred quickly enough for selective pressures to explain the ordered variety of species seen in the fossil record. Well, except that Darwinism's assumption has been proved wrong.

...Not only is this begging the question, but it makes a rather large assumption from the start...

First of all, either you don't understand ID, or you don't understand the logical fallacy of begging the question. Anyway... it makes no assumption at all. It is based on observation and inference.

On the other hand, ID proponents can't scientifically eliminate the possibility that intelligence(s) (aliens) that evolved somehow may have seeded the earth. It makes a common-sense inference based on observation. I really wish people would stop spreading rumors about things they don't understand. That'd be good.

[WalkerW]

Another criticism:

Who is this Walker kid? He never gets off the forums, now he’s publishing articles that only he responds to, and he always assumes he’s right about everything. A pretty good example of the selfish, anthropocentric human with too much time on his hands, lathering in his own fantasy world of intellectualism, the epitome of an under-read undergraduate whose lack of humility and exuberant arrogance crompromises the very drive that fuels his futile attempt at understanding the world.

Is it bad that I laughed out loud when I read this?

[WalkerW]

Anyway... everything requires a first cause. Just ask why enough times, and you eventually start asking questions like, "Why does anything exist?"

I started a new thread on this subject.

[Questing Beast]

...

I cannot see through your eyes- it is that simple. If both of us see something, then thousands see it, it is "objective". Otherwise, we really can have doubt and uncertainty.

The purpose of science is to make replicable observations which create what we call "facts"- but it says nothing at all about how important these observations are in our lives.

The movie "Contact" deals with this problem of personal experience directly. Jodie Foster's character insisted before millions of viewers that she had had a real experience: no matter how unsupported by empirical evidence (in fact, refuted by it) she held to her belief that what she had gone through for c. 18 hours was real. So of course her singular witness was to remain just that: unsupported by anything but a mysterious blank recording of nothing but static, c. the same length of time that she had described.

The point is that the individual is always solitary and remains so. There is no more evidence for mind-melding or other metaphysical contact between humans than there is for resurrection from the dead. Yet the vast majority of our species believe in the afterlife. Nothing can be held up as more subjective and superstitious: if we are to judge solely by empirical evidence whether a belief is subjective or objective. There is nothing whatsoever objective about a belief in an afterlife. Yet we believe it anyway. Lesser examples can be multiplied. We are in fact a highly subjective species; our objective capacity is limited in the extreme. Science is our first baby step to eradicate this deficiency in our cognitive powers....

[mfbukowski]

This type of movement is very exciting to me. I think it will be beneficial to both religious and non-religious alike.

He is right on- but I think we are in a better position as LDS to understand this than even he is. The problem is that we need to be Theistic Humanists and understand that God is both transcendent AND human- and we are co-creators of the universe with him, as is implied early in the video.

Great sound byte! Thanks for that!

[mfbukowski]

The movie "Contact" deals with this problem of personal experience directly.

Thanks for the reminder- that was a GREAT movie and an excellent example!

[thesometimesaint]

Chris:

I have no problem with an objective God, while my experience with him, in this life, is subjective. To use a earthly comparison. My mom was a very real person, but my interactions with her were always subject to my personal interpretations. I can not prove, in any scientific sense of the word, that she loved me. But I certainly felt that love.

[mfbukowski]

I wanted to take some time on this one and go pretty much line by line. I really like the fact that you are such a good representative of the positions you present and the fact that you are willing to listen and discuss intelligently instead of insulting etc. It's a good opportunity for a really exchange in my opinion.

Surely you don't believe that things you can not understand do not exist. Ultraviolet light? I could not put my head around how LONG 100 million years is, without science showing me. I don't understand how light can be both a wave and a particle at the same time, without science showing me. I don't understand quantum mechanics, because I live in a world of MASSIVE objects.

Yet I believe them all to be true, even if I can't experience it. I don't know what electricity looks like subjectively, but science has shown me what it does. These things- despite having no subjective experience. DO exist. If something does not have the objective piece, but only the subjective piece, I do not find it reasonable to think it exists, outside my mind.

As I mentioned in a previous post- what we are discussing is not what we see with the "naked eye"- it is everything humans can know about and experience- using instruments, telescopes, microscopes, (electron and otherwise) or even theorize based on data which is observable. It is still all "subjective" until confirmed by other's observations, and then it becomes "objective". Find and read the article in my siggy and it makes that all much clearer. Suppose we could see radio waves with our natural eyes- we would have a whole new range of experience- but they would all still be subjective and have to be "verified" to become "objective".

What if I proposed a theory that did not match observations. Something crazy like- illness is the result of your body being out of sync with the energy of the universe. Disease is not caused by viruses or bacteria, but by a mismatch of energy in the cells. Thus, in order to be cured of your ailment, you need to see a trained practitioner, who after tapping on your head for multiple sessions, would heal you. Somehow this tapping would restore the energy to your body, and it would cure the disease.

This would be a theory subject to objective, scientific verification, or we could not expect it to work in our bodies. Doesn't have much to do with God.

This isn't hypothetical, or fictional. My mother believes every word I just wrote. Nothing will convince her otherwise. You may happen to agree with her, which would be rather unfortunate because my analogy would fall right on its face. However, when you take this "paradigm shift" then doesn't EVERYTHING with subjective value become "Real" at that point? That is the problem I have with what you are saying.

Perhaps it would be useful to think of a "great chasm" between what is subjective- which concerns your attitudes about things and the way you think and your value systems and what is objectively verifiable. It's not a question of what is "real" it is a question of what is "important" and what gives your life "meaning". Motivation, intuition, significance, attitude, feelings, choice, what is "good" or "bad" for you personally or why you should do things have nothing or little to do with verifiable observations.

All of these are "real" and important in your life, but none of them are verifiable to anyone but you.

My subjective world works fine without god. Thus, can't I use your "paradigm shift" argument to say that he does not exist? I believe that science offers the only proposed way to sort through EVERY crazy idea. What exactly helps you sort through them?

Tapping on the skull cannot be shown scientifically to have any effect on illness. That is scientifically verifiable. But I am not saying that tapping on the skull makes my life more rewarding, that it helps me to understand the world better, that it helps me make decisions, gives me motivation, helps me make choices about what is right for me etc. It does not enrich my subjective life or help me in any way.

The whole thing sounds like you are saying, that if something exists in your head, then it is real. If you imagine it, and it has value, then it becomes part of reality. However, not only can that argument be pointed right back against you (as I just did), but it also doesn't help when you use that "subjective reality" to explain things that happened in the "non0subjective" world. The world that exists outside our senses.

Get over "what is real". It's an abstract category which really has very little use conceptually and just causes confusion. I don't know what "real" means. Nothing exists outside our (collective) senses. There is only what is verifiable and what is not verifiable objectively.

You claim that there is a god. Your evidence for this is not externally observable (I think is what you are saying), but based on your subjective experience of him. This is different than asking, for example, if panda bears exist, because you and I both can decide on a definition of a panda bear, and go out and find it (or in this day and age, look it up on a computer).

Actually, yes, it is quite different.

However, we can not do the same for god(I propose), because he lacks that objective evidence.

Exactly right.

This would be a lot like me saying, "Well I can imagine a Panda Bear that is naturally green with purple polka dots, and it makes perfect sense giving my worldview, so they exist in the same way that black and white pandas exist". Is that what you are proposing? I feel like I am missing something.

You are. First of all God does not exist (yet- let me say that I happen to believe that God is in principle objectively verifiable, but does not choose to make himself so- but that fact is not important in my life) as an objectively observable entity.

I am not saying because I can dream something up- a green fish that flies like a butterfly- that makes it "real". That pesky word again. Such a belief does nothing for my motivations, attitude, understanding, values, choices etc. Such a belief does not help anything in the objectively verifiable world- it does not cure disease, fix my car, have an effect on ecology etc. Such an imaginary thing has no effect on anything and is a totally useless idea. If you want to write a children's story about such a thing, then that might be fun I guess.

What exactly sets the existence of god (and all the other things you imply, such as our "spiritual" history, the belief that this creator created the universe etc.) apart from the crazy persons multi-colored pandas?

Well I have already detailed some of that, but first let me say that again the notions of what is "real" or "exists" is an ambiguous category to me that allows me to ask irrelevant questions and commit all kinds of logical category errors. Are undiscovered species "real"? I don't know or care frankly. Are unicorns "real" because there is extensive literature about them? I don't know or care.

I suppose you are asking what difference my experience of God makes in my life, and it is immeasurable. I have known things no one could know naturally about what is happening with people in my stewardship; I have felt a certainty about my place in the universe which gives me great peace and a sense of oneness with all.

Frankly I think that people who will not allow themselves to believe in God are 1- doing just that, and 2- have some fear that somehow such a belief is "irrational" when it is anything but irrational.

I realized that, I think, as an atheist myself once, that I did not want to allow those feelings I had to be classified in my own mind as "rational" because I didn't understand how they could be "rational". I was a fundamentalist- and highly dogmatic in my belief in science as being the only way to understand what was "real" because of my stupid definition of what was "real".

I felt comfortable in looking to others for my definitions and seeing everything scientifically was comforting because if someone else did not also see what I saw, I could just dismiss it as an "irrational feeling". I always had science to keep me safe, there was always all of the other people in the universe to verify for me what was "real".

I never allowed myself to be open to all the impressions the universe was giving me without the need to see some sort of "verification" from others.

But the more I studied philosophy, I started to see how silly a category "reality" is and how what was verifiable to others was often unimportant to me. Science doesn't give your life meaning, it doesn't help your attitude toward life, it doesn't help you make choices about what is important to you, but give you a warm excuse to not deal with feelings that there might be "more" to life. You expressed some of those feelings, so I know you have felt them.

The I had some very strong experiences which I would describe as "spiritual", and I surrendered. I knew that God was a force to be included in my life without throwing out anything else- and I have kept that point of view now for about 30 years and found my life incredibly enriched. Pure intelligence has flown through my being and once you have allowed that to happen, there is no going back, call it what you like.

[mfbukowski]

Chris:

I have no problem with an objective God, while my experience with him, in this life, is subjective. To use a earthly comparison. My mom was a very real person, but my interactions with her were always subject to my personal interpretations. I can not prove, in any scientific sense of the word, that she loved me. But I certainly felt that love.

Good analogy!

[elguanteloko]

Chris:

I have no problem with an objective God, while my experience with him, in this life, is subjective.

How do you know that he is "objective", then?