<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 2:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br> Science cannot deal with anything unobservable. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Our theories do. We have theories that describe the interiors of black holes, other branches of the wave function, galaxies and radiation beyond the cosmological horizon, etc. despite none of them being observable.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Yes but, your theories start from observed facts about atoms and molecules and fission and fusion and the spectrums of the black holes, which are observed indirectly via their influence on bodies near them. This is hardly without observations. All scientific theories start with observed facts. Many things are not observable directly, but indirectly. As long as the scientific method is use, with replication etc., you are still doing science.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif">It's going to take a lot for me to swallow any idea that science and religion can get together somehow. Differen epistemologies, as I said.</span><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The theory of energy underwent many reformulations as our understanding improved. Cannot the same happen for our understanding of God, souls, reality, afterlives, etc.? Can science not investigate these subjects merely because some religion claimed them first?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">You can investigage anything if you can find something to observe. Find my soul, will you? I am going to donate it to any god who will accept it.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm currently writing a book on the science of the soul. There is much that we can glean about the soul just using science. There is scientific support for many ideas that one would typically assume fall into the sphere of religion. For example: eternal life, immortality, reincarnation, afterlives, divine union, the immateriality of the soul and its distinction from the body.</div><div><br></div><div>In many cases, these conclusions are inevitable if you start from the standard scientific ideas about consciousness (e.g. mechanism).</div><div><br></div><div>If it can be scientifically demonstrated that your consciousness possesses some or all of these traits, would you call it a soul?</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>The Baháʼí Faith, for instance, is very explicit in its belief that science and religion must be united in harmony. As it's leader described:</div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>"<b>The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; </b>the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national;<b> the harmony which must exist between religion and science; </b>the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Th above part is great and wonderful and is more politics than religion.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>How do you draw a line that separates the two?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Baháʼu'lláh proclaimed]."</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">This part is too vague to understand.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I take it to mean that having a set of ideals to hold in esteem inoculates society against commuting the worst of atrocities, and also provides a placeholder to prevent the worship of human leaders or nations.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><div style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">bill w</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:10 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><br>On Thursday, April 23, 2020, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div lang="x-western"> Dammit, done it again!<br>
<br>
Reposted, with correct Subject line :(<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/04/2020 00:18, Adrian Tymes wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:51 PM Ben Zaiboc
via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 22/04/2020 18:39,
Adrian Tymes wrote:<br>
> agnosticism is a lack of belief in gods. Atheism
is a belief in the <br>
> lack of gods.<br>
<br>
This is patently false. Agnosticism has nothing at all
to say about <br>
belief, it's about knowledge (from the greek, 'Gnosis',
meaning <br>
knowledge). Agnosticism is the position that you
don't/can't know.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And thus, a lack of belief.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not necessarily.<br>
Many religious people will freely admit they have no definite
knowledge about their particular god, but still choose to believe
in it. I know that's a logically contradictory position, but
belief knows no logic. In fact it rejects logic.<br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Atheism, in it's most
common form, is the lack of belief in gods. Some <br>
people define a 'strong', or 'hard' form of atheism that
is an assertion <br>
that no gods exist, but that is a minority view.<br>
<br>
These things are easy to look up.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</a> <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of
belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly,
atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities
exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is
specifically the position that there are no deities."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I guess both meanings are in use.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. And one is overwhelmingly more common than the other.<br>
<br>
When I say I'm an atheist, I don't want people to assume I
subscribe to a minority interpretation of the term (mainly
because, to me, it's not so much the non-existence of gods that is
the important thing, but the not believing in things ('believing'
as in accepting things as true without a shred of evidence, and
even in the face of contradictory evidence).<br>
<br>
The narrowest sense is the one that needs qualification, not the
broadest one. This is true of job titles and many other things,
not just world-views.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They're also definitions of God held by different religions or different believers which are scientifically consistent.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, God as the creator (consistent with the simulation hypothesis), or God as the "world soul" -- the collection of all conscious brings (consistent with open individualism), or God as Truth/Reality (consistent with mathematical realism).</div><div><br></div><div>It's easy to forget that there's any different religions and God's out there, as well as varying levels sophistications of belief, even within those religions.</div><div><br></div><div>There's no reason I see that religious ideas cannot be extended and grow together with advances in scientific understanding. To assume otherwise and say religious ideas must stagnate perverts and restricts not only religion but science as well.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>