Science and Spirituality

[Ilya Shambat]

I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
is respect for and even awe before what they see. A serious student of
biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity
than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of
this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such
things possible.

Someone possessing in-depth knowledge of science would therefore have
respect for and even awe of the universe; but that does not
necessarily mean that he is going to agree with the concept of
Biblical God. The reason is that Christianity holds a dismissive, even
damning, attitude toward nature, seeing "flesh" (meaning the human
body and the rest of physical natural world) as being a creation of
the Satan or as being poisoned by sin. A serious student of biology
would be angered by attitudes of this nature. The reason is that
what's being damned or impugned here is something possessing far
greater complexity, richness and viability than anything that the
person possessing such attitudes knows how to create. And he would
likewise be angered by brainless economic practices such as destroying
the extraordinarily rich environment that is Amazon to make ranches
that become useless in two years, when there are many other ways to
feed Latin America, or flooding the atmosphere and the oceans with CO2
from dirty coal and oil, when there are many other ways to provide
energy that are a lot less destructive.

That does not mean that the scientist is going to have no spiritual
feelings; indeed he may have very profound spiritual feelings - once
again as a rational consequence of what he sees. He may be more likely
to agree with a creed such as Deism, which was practiced by America's
founders Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, that sees divine truths as
being found in nature and discovered through rational inquiry. He may
believe in some providence or some higher intelligence, but he is not
likely to agree with the Biblical beliefs that damn the natural world
or the human body. The reason once again is that he will have respect
for the natural world and the human body as a rational reaction to
what he finds out about these things.

Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another;
indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with
scientific knowledge. The more one studies natural life the more he
values it and respects it. The attitude of the romantic is a natural
outgrowth of the obvious implications of scientific inquiry: A logical
consummation of the respect for natural life that scientific study of
life engenders. And if one believes in some higher power, it becomes
power that is congruent with, and not held opposite to, life.

The person involved in real scientific inquiry is likewise going to be
in disagreement with the people who deem themselves rational while
they have contempt for natural processes. Such contempt is an obvious
mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate knowledge. Until one can
create something as complex as human body or Amazonian rainforest, one
has no business having contempt for such things; and a person who has
such contempt either possesses inadequate understanding of the
preceding or does not possess adequate reasoning faculties to
understand the logical implications thereof.

There are any number of scientists with very profound spiritual
understanding, and it is spiritual understanding that is driven by
fact and logic. It is driven by understanding just what it is that
exists in nature and in the universe and by grasping the full
complexity thereof. What the Native Americans referred to as the Great
Mystery, science makes explicable, and in the process instills respect
for it. The lack of such respect - whether it comes from Biblical
attitudes or from attitudes that falsely claim themselves natural - is
a mark that one does not know what one is talking about and has no
real knowledge of what it is that he holds in disrespect.

[Ilya Shambat]

attitudes or from attitudes that falsely claim themselves rational -

[Ilya Shambat]

[fasgnadh]

On 9/02/2012 10:03 PM, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
> see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
> is respect for and even awe before what they see.

"..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.

This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion...

science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind.

- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
a Symposium", 1941
^^^^^


"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a
little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the
ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that
someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It
does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the
child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects." - Albert Einstein

> A serious student of
> biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
> human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
> staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
> rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity
> than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of
> this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such
> things possible.

> Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another;
> indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with
> scientific knowledge.

--


Ex- Atheist, now Prophet, Richard Dawkins claims that some atheist
"Gods have come into being.." somewhere in the Universe "by an
explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution",
(which no atheist can explain). B^D

# "After two hours of conversation, Professor Dawkins walks far afield.
# He talks of the possibility that we might co-evolve with computers, a
# silicon destiny. And he’s intrigued by the playful, even soul-stirring
# writings of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist.
#
# 'In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years
# into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into
# something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.
#
# Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?
#
# "Certainly," Professor Dawkins replies. "It’s highly plausible that
# in the universe there are God-like creatures."
#
# He raises his hand,

http://www.vectorsite.net/taevo_07_01.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5BV_YADVD7o/R3KMsQ0usrI/AAAAAAAABHU/qup-8dKPbEs/s400/pope+b16.jpg


# just in case a reader thinks he’s gone around a
# religious bend. "It’s very important to understand that these Gods
# came into being

When did that happen? where? How many 'came into being'?
Do they have names?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?!??

# by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution."'


Explain how IMMATERIAL and SUPERNATURAL entities, "superpowerful
intelligent and moral energy" can be affected by Natural Selection,
which occurs in BIOLOGICAL species subject to physical mutations!?

# Could they be immortal? The professor shrugs.
#
# “Probably not.” He smiles and adds, “But I
# wouldn’t want to be too dogmatic about that.”"



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all


So, which atheist is going to explain the inexplicable,
unscientific, BELIEF in "these {atheist] Gods", with no proof
whatsoever, and show us the evidence of how, and where, God evolved?

...........................................................

...........................................................

...........................................................


---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)



http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest


"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest

http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg

[Sir Frederick Martin]

The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
(read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
around the Earth.

[Vinncent Ecodiesel]

Ilya Shambat <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:79a3eaef-6b68-4fcc-b4c9-
3d4059...@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Nowhere in this post does it say if you're related to Illya Kuryakin.

Turn heading 340 and expidite your climb to FL 200.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vinn Ecodiesel
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Is this thing turned on ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Boo!

[tooly]

On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:

One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
we can never know [for certain anyway].

But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
Oh...wait a minute...uh...

[Vurgil]

In article <FKOYq.2852$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,

fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/02/2012 10:03 PM, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> > and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> > The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
> > see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
> > is respect for and even awe before what they see.
>
>
> "..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
> imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.
>
> This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion...

Nonsense. Religion relies on credulity, science requires doubt.

>
> science without religion is lame,
> religion without science is blind.
>
> - Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
> a Symposium"

But then, Einstein's view on what constitutes religion does not include
any personal gods.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

>
> > A serious student of
> > biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
> > human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
> > staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
> > rainforest.

After two hours of conversation, Professor Dawkins walks far afield. He

talks of the possibility that we might co-evolve with computers, a

silicon destiny. And heąs intrigued by the playful, even soul-stirring

writings of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist.

In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years into
the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into something

like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.

[So the context of discussion is now established as being in Dyson's far
future, and the following must be interpreted in that context]

Doesnąt that description sound an awful lot like God?

[Again establishing that the context is Dyson's future universe]

łCertainly,˛ Professor Dawkins replies. łItąs highly plausible that in
the [Dyson future] universe there are God-like creatures.˛

He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks heąs gone around a
religious bend. łItąs very important to understand that these [future]
Gods came into being by an explicable scientific progression of
incremental evolution.˛

Could they be immortal?

The professor shrugs. łProbably not.˛ He smiles and adds, łBut I
wouldnąt want to be too dogmatic about that.˛


A version of this article appeared in print on September 20, 2011, in

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 9, 5:44 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.

I have discovered that the best of them have minds like
finely tuned Swiss bullshit detectors.

[Sir Frederick Martin]

Neural networks, are not like the computers 'we' know.

[tooly]

> Neural networks, are not like the computers 'we' know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What's the difference? Complexity? Don't our own neural networks work
upon binary logic, just like computers [the binary information being
in chemical design, you know, off/on, true/false, stop/go, open/
close[as in synapses] etc].

I've watched an entire society being changed right before my eyes with
new METHODOLOGY as found in things like 'social engineering' and
'deconstruction-construction technique' etc. These methods are toying
with psychological programming at least in a grand 'jesture'. Things
like 'brainwashing' have been tried in the past...an advent offshoot
of PROPOGANDA techniques, a realization by marxists and nazi's alike
(and applied in the modern era as well) as to a great significanse in
conquering a people [and making them do your biddings etc]. Why
exactly did you buy Tide laundry detergent over that other off brand
anyway? Human behavior has been pigeon holed long ago, as to what
colors, wordings, textures, labels, lingos and whatever else, evoke
them to 'buy things' [as one application]. It is not a great leap to
apply such knowledge with new understandings of the brain, to evoke
'changed persona' altogether...another creature in fact [in
essence...maybe rid of that hunter-gatherer ball and chain you always
allude to etc].

As an engineer, you perhaps see 'bottom up'...and the intricacy of
neural networks. But, there might be a 'meeting' at some point of the
'bottom up' approach with old 'top down' methods of past eras, where
PROGAMMING takes on a new efficacy meshing both biological and
psychological techniques.

Of course, there is always the 'ethical' problem to all this...but, as
I see it, our capacity to 'rationalize' can sidestep any moral
misgivings easy enough. Morality has never stopped science and new
discovery before [and that was during times when God was real to the
imaginations of humans everywhere]. No longer of course.

[Sir Frederick Martin]

See :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
and the links therein.

And :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
and the links therein.

The point is that the computational devices 'we'
build are not what 'nature' built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture

Even 'logic' comes up fuzzy, as that is most pragmatic
in complex evolution.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

We should probably avoid the topic of fuzzy logic because the kook
regulars around here have enough trouble as it is with basic logic.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I
have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than
in the church."
-- Ferdinand Magellan

[Ben Kaufman]

<SNIP>

No, Neural networks are analog. The output from an NN "gate" can be a wide
range of values, not binary.

While it is "relatively" easy to program a computer with software, the reverse
is not the case for neural networks.

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:59:38 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>We should probably avoid the topic of fuzzy logic because the kook
>regulars around here have enough trouble as it is with basic logic.

But they are pretty good at fuzzy thinking! :-)

Ben

[Csaba Farkasescue]

They are even better at NOT THINKING.

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

Ilya Shambat wrote:

> I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
> see of its richness and complexity,

Pulled their head out of their ass looked up and had the audacity to
wonder why, instead of accepting the fodder fed the sheeple!

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

Sir Frederick Martin wrote:

> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'.

Some of those STORIES you lump together in an almost snear, were ways of
some ancient peoples remembering their HISTORY!
As for HEROES and GODS, your ONLY Immortal if "They Remember your
Name"!
Takes 300 Years to Become a Hero, and 1,000 to become a God.

[Errol]

Yes that is one model. another model might be to throw bones onto the
ground and derive truth from the angles they form with respect to each
other.

Doing this correctly might not be a FUNCTION for the masses though.
It might take decades of slaughtering goats and running bare foot
across
coals in order to have access to that FUNCTION.

[tooly]

On Feb 13, 2:48 am, "Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole"

Actually, one becomes immortal only if the worms that gobble up your
rotting carcas reconstructs the molecules as some statue or something
in town square for future first graders on field trips to oggle over
as Ms. Masterson, their teacher, prattles over how so brave and
extraordinary people were back in your time.

Except for Bedford Forest. Now, he actually was an extraordinary
fellow...a true hero. Perhaps he was Alexander the Great class even.
But of course, his name was erased from the annals of time for his
flirting with the KKK. Too bad. All them carpet baggers probably did
need a resistance aroused...but alas, not palpable to today's
perceptions. Not to suggest vindication for the KKK...but only to
espouse amazement over this guy's war antics.

So, our stories become vehicles for political disbursement of hegemony
too. Critical theory even goes further, to politicize ALL literature
as means to 'control people'...overtly or covertly, whatever. Ever
visit your local University library lately...and make an assessment on
feminist literature? Hells bells, you come away thinking the entire
female kingdom has gone lesbo...and they've taken over the college
cirricula. Hmm...gotta go; I hear a toilet flushing...

[tooly]

> coals in order to have access to that FUNCTION.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I read in leviticus, that ancient Israelite priests had to smear
things like goat's blood and guts on the tabernacle entrance [or
wherever] before they could enter. If you didn't follow strict
procedure, you would fall dead upon looking upon it [or something like
that]. I've scratched my head many times trying to figger' that one
out. Sacrifice, lambs blood, flesh and bone, death and life,
fear...even repulsion? How does it all tie together?

I watch a Quentin Tarintino movie, and I come away with a 'voided'
empty feeling. Blood and guts leaves you like that I think. A bit
sickly, a bit scared, a bit 'yukky'. Yet, as I pass a bad car
accident on the road, I'm compelled to rubber neck like everyone
else...even as I know I will 'regret' it if I 'see anything' bad. And
I find myself watching the 'next' Quentin Tarintino movie when it
comes out [sort of like the alcohoic that knows he will hate himself
in the morning].

The Aztecs and Mayans were heavy into this sacrifice thingy too;
offering tens of thousands of 'fresh beating hearts' ripped from the
bosoms of hapless victims, up to their sun god. We're a pitiful
creature when you get right down to it I think.

After 61 years, I come more and more to an existential conclusion of
any philosophical truth there might be. And all that says is there is
NO truth, that we can know; no absolute 'something' out there that
defines it all, is the mother equation of all equations. So, TRUTH
must then [if my conclusions are close], be MOMENTARY. And...a
function of our existence. This is both good and bad I think; for on
the one hand, it can lead to despondency and nihilism...but it also
can lead us to 'freeing' ourselves up from our environment which
oftens acts upon our senses in a DICTATORIAL way. It perhaps puts a
different angle of insight to our attempts to justify a 'spirituality'
to things...by trying to diminish and even denounce our flesh and bone
[reality] through history. In that very causality, that in the very
NEED to escape our physicalness, we find that 'spirit' in and of
itself as a kind of seperate identity of self; and it could even
justify, to some extent a duality of what we are.

Our bodies are balls and chains to something in us. That
'something'...yearns for freedom...and in so doing, is WILLING to take
on struggle and pain...and even 'sacrifice' [?].

Or maybe we are just ignorant backwards fools who know nothing about
those neural networks that Sir brags about all the time.

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

Walking the Waters of the Lake, are a vastly different concept!
You are the Avatar of your life's story!
You, are the Image of GOD walking.
When you can let go of your egoic self existence and become one with the
waters of the Lake, it becomes a vastly different world.
Voodoo Flinging Ego Maniac's drawing Circles in the Sand, to throw Curses at
some one, calling Spirits to be your slaves, binding Nature to your will,
selling your soul to Satan, all but acts of Ego, demanding Instant
Gratification, with out regard to consequences.
Walking the Waters of the Lake, such mundane matters are irrelevant,
dangerous and Harmful!
You don't need to murder life to see the future.

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

tooly wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2:48 am, "Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole"
> <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote:
> > Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
> > > The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> > > Hence 'we' make up 'stories'.
> >
> > Some of those STORIES you lump together in an almost snear, were ways of
> > some ancient peoples remembering their HISTORY!
> > As for HEROES and GODS, your ONLY Immortal if "They Remember your
> > Name"!
> > Takes 300 Years to Become a Hero, and 1,000 to become a God.
>
> Actually, one becomes immortal only if the worms that gobble up your
> rotting carcas reconstructs the molecules as some statue or something

In "Your Illiterate Opinion!
Ancients told their story regardless of what You "BELIEVE"!
There are Christian's, unlike your Fundie Bigots, who can "PROVE" their
existence before Constintine and his Buddies Took over!
Just because YOU don't like JESUS, doesn't make Rama, or Buddha, a LIE!
Like Buddhists teach though, the Churchers always alter the teachings to make
it sell better, which is why a new messenger comes along to evolve the
teachings every 2,000 Years.
Jesus may have been the "ONE" at the Time, but that does not make him the
ONLY!
He is Far from the First or Last "Golden Calf" mankind will ever know!
As for Statues, how about Gog and Magog.

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

I read in Numbers and Deu., that Only the Levites, can enter, the Tabernacle,
and Only Y'O'Shua can go in and out of the Citadel!

[Ilya Shambat]

I've seen that quality as well. They develop very effective techniques
to eliminate error as part of their studies. It comes with mastery of
scientific method.

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

Legends how ever dictate that the Bull, Shi'ite, Born of the ASS of a Man,
will Prevail!

[bee]