Science and Religion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize.

The phrasing here is odd, as if it should be surprising that many atheists are "rooted in wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence." I don't know why it would be. Maybe because for some who do have faith in a higher power, that wonder leads to thoughts of a higher power's plan, whereas that wonder in atheists maybe just leads to a deeper appreciation of our natural world and the laws that govern it (though believers can certainly come to that conclusion as well)?
 
The phrasing here is odd, as if it should be surprising that many atheists are "rooted in wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence." I don't know why it would be. Maybe because for some who do have faith in a higher power, that wonder leads to thoughts of a higher power's plan, whereas that wonder in atheists maybe just leads to a deeper appreciation of our natural world and the laws that govern it (though believers can certainly come to that conclusion as well)?

:up:

It's as if, in order to be considered atheist, you must be devoid of passion, wonder, awe, reflectiveness, etc. Religion doesn't get to claim these under their umbrella
 
I don't know -- in Ecklund's follow-up book, SCIENCE VS. RELIGION, she apparently discounts that conventional wisdom.

"Science vs. Religion" discovers what scientists really think about religion



I think it's probably accurate to say that more scientists may be religious/spiritual than they may be given credit for -- though you and I can probably agree that dogma is a different category.

(I'm also not sure that charging Ecklund's study with bias since it was funded by the Templeton Foundation makes a lot of sense -- particularly given that the Templeton Foundation awards lots of grants related to scientific exploration, including Professor Martin Nowak, Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University.)

You just used the same study cited in the first link as further proof. I stand by by original post.
And if she's claiming 'spiritual' as a hint of religion, I wonder what other liberal definitions she's using
 
:up:

It's as if, in order to be considered atheist, you must be devoid of passion, wonder, awe, reflectiveness, etc. Religion doesn't get to claim these under their umbrella

I thought you did an excellent job of describing Carl Sagan's spiritual experience and that of your own earlier in the thread. I have a better understanding how many scientist use the term "god"...

I was just hoping there were more quantum physicists attending Mass - contemplating Transubstantiation in terms of String Theory...
 
But it's using the same numbers from her original study

...and from the 275 questions she posed as follow-ups. I'm not sure what your issue with that is. She ran a study that challenges conventional wisdom. Based on her follow up, she wrote a book that further explored the fascinating question of the intersection of science and spirituality/religion, and found that there are more scientists who are spiritual/religious than one might first guess. This is supported by other studies that show doctors are also apparently much more spiritual/religious than might first seem.

Interesting stuff, regardless of whether you subscribe to a spiritual belief system or not.
 
I thought you did an excellent job of describing Carl Sagan's spiritual experience and that of your own earlier in the thread. I have a better understanding how many scientist use the term "god"...

I was just hoping there were more quantum physicists attending Mass - contemplating Transubstantiation in terms of String Theory...

Thanks man :)

And I laughed at your second bit
 
I figured that I'd throw in my thoughts on this issue, since it's something about which I think a lot.

I can relate very strongly to the feeling of wanting to find God in the universe, because that's a feeling that I've felt extraordinarily strongly. But my (god-given?) senses give me little reason to. I am about as far as one can get from being an expert on physics, but my limited knowledge gives me no forward reason to believe in a god, and I am quite certain that most experts in the field would feel the same way.
I would agree that few come to know God through the study of Science. But I would say that many come to know God simply contemplating the same question Dr. Susskind asked, "Why all this stuff?"

Why do red's wavelengths produce a particular sensation? It's easy to talk about biology and evolution and the like, but all that talk skirts around a fundamental issue: the experiential seemingly having a property of radical emergence from the physically objective. That's primarily where I've tried to insert God, and still occasionally do. And although I do believe that the mind/body problem is still an issue, God seems like a solution only in the sense that His existence would provide a neat and tidy explanation for everything. That's hardly strong grounds to warrant my belief.
I would agree that this is not strong grounds to warrant belief in God - but I would disagree that it is a neat and tidy explanation.


The type of religious faith that I respect most greatly is that which throws out all pretense of being based on reasonable science, and that which does not pin its hopes to future scientific discoveries. I believe very strongly that science will never find real evidence of a god.
I agree very much with this.

I also believe that it will always leave questions. But, if a question cannot be reached via science, then a certain answer can, by definition, never be reached for it.
Science is well suited for an Either/Or world and system. Perhaps - the rise of quantum computing will expand the discussion as we move away from an Either/Or toward a Both/And world and system.
 
...and from the 275 questions she posed as follow-ups. I'm not sure what your issue with that is. She ran a study that challenges conventional wisdom. Based on her follow up, she wrote a book that further explored the fascinating question of the intersection of science and spirituality/religion, and found that there are more scientists who are spiritual/religious than one might first guess. This is supported by other studies that show doctors are also apparently much more spiritual/religious than might first seem.

Interesting stuff, regardless of whether you subscribe to a spiritual belief system or not.

My issue is the wishy washiness of the sources and definitions. Whereas the 1998 survey was quite clear who they were surveying and at what tier. The 98 survey is of the country's 'top' scientists. This newer survey dilutes the field quite a bit.

I do agree with you in that it is interesting none the less
 
My issue is the wishy washiness of the sources and definitions. Whereas the 1998 survey was quite clear who they were surveying and at what tier. The 98 survey is of the country's 'top' scientists. This newer survey dilutes the field quite a bit

Maybe we should read her book and get to the bottom of it! :)
 
The mind/body problem doesn't seem like such a problem to me. I see no reason to support dualism as a required phenomenon. It would seem to me that consciousness, and thus the 'mind', is more a byproduct of memory than anything intangible . I'm sure we've all (maybe not all) experienced a night or two in college when our conscious brain has taken the night off, yet we're still able to 'function' more or less as a sentient being (reading through Dennet's Intuition Pumps it struck me as a bit odd that nobody has really approached consciousness in this way... or maybe they have. I'm not that well read on the subject). Why do red wavelengths of light produce a given qualia within us? Because in order for us to reacted differently to different wavelengths of light, they must produce a different sensation. It's a bit of a non question as to why we see red as red. We must see it as something different; it could be completely arbitrary.

I read this article a few months back and it seems to relate. It seems to be stating that the consciousness is comprised from quantum activity in brain.

Calcium ions that trigger exocytosis needs to cross a barrier to the synaptic vesicle and the Calcium ions can not classically cross this barrier. As a result quantum tunneling is needed fore the Calcium ions to cross this barrier but the odds of this occurring are 1 in 10,000,000.

- from article Synaptic Quantum Tunnelling
in Brain Activity


In view of these new and important
concepts for elevating consciousness finally
up to a scientific basis, we present evidence
for a realistic implementation of quantum
events into brain dynamics. It is based on our
present knowledge of cortical structure and
the synaptic regulation of neural impulses.
Basic assumptions and results are:
· Quantum processes in the wet and hot
surroundings of the brain are only possible at
the microscopic level of (electron) transitions
in the pico- to femtosecond time scale.
· Spine synapses are important regulators in
brain activity, filtering the ever present firings
of nerve impulses.
· Exocytosis, the release of transmitter
substance across the presynaptic membrane,
is an all-or-nothing event which occurs with
probabilities much smaller than one.
· A model, based on electron transfer,
relates exocytosis with a two-state quantum
trigger, leading by quantum tunnelling to the
superposition of two states, followed by state
reduction (collapse into one definite final
state).
· The coherent coupling of synapses via
microtubular connections is still an open
problem. Quantum coherence ('macroscopic
quantum state') is not needed to couple
microsites, which exhibit quantum transitions
with their definite phase relations, to
produce spatio-temporal patterns. The
quantum trigger can, however, initialize
transitions between different macroscopic
modes (stochastic limit cycles, Grifoni and
Hänggi, 1996).
The quantum trigger opens a
doorway for a better understanding of the
relation between brain dynamics and
consciousness.
 
Interesting stuff... I've done reading on string theory and dark matter, but this is newish for me...

Just wanted to say kudos, all for a good thread. Lots of interesting thoughts, information and perspective being shared. Thanks AEON, JT, digitize, and everyone else for some good, meaningful, open-minded discussion!
 
Just wanted to say kudos, all for a good thread. Lots of interesting thoughts, information and perspective being shared. Thanks AEON, JT, digitize, and everyone else for some good, meaningful, open-minded discussion!
:up:

Kudos to you as well.
 
Just wanted to say kudos, all for a good thread. Lots of interesting thoughts, information and perspective being shared. Thanks AEON, JT, digitize, and everyone else for some good, meaningful, open-minded discussion!

:up:

You too, man! Feels a bit energized in here
 
The mind/body problem doesn't seem like such a problem to me. I see no reason to support dualism as a required phenomenon. It would seem to me that consciousness, and thus the 'mind', is more a byproduct of memory than anything intangible .

Since it now seems that quantum phenomena is required to "run" the brain - it seems to open the door the real possibility (meaning highly probable) that our consciousness is more than the sum of the parts of our physical brain.

And when you throw in wacky concepts like Superposition, Entanglement, and the Heisenberg principle - it seems to lend support that our "mind" - if it is indeed comprised of particles - can exist outside our brain. Setting the spiritual implications aside - the Transhumanist movements is predicting the ability to upload our minds into the "cloud" and then download it into a separate body (if you choose to even have a body).

TBBT Sheldon tries to determine when is he going to die - YouTube

Joking aside - Transhumanism fascinates me - and I wrestle with what role my faith will play in the events leading up to and beyond the Singularity.
 
My gf bought me the 25th anniversary edition for my bday last year. It's not the genius edition, but I'm afraid nobody would play with me if it were :( it's hard enough to get them to play as it is
 
Since it now seems that quantum phenomena is required to "run" the brain - it seems to open the door the real possibility (meaning highly probable) that our consciousness is more than the sum of the parts of our physical brain.

And when you throw in wacky concepts like Superposition, Entanglement, and the Heisenberg principle - it seems to lend support that our "mind" - if it is indeed comprised of particles - can exist outside our brain. Setting the spiritual implications aside - the Transhumanist movements is predicting the ability to upload our minds into the "cloud" and then download it into a separate body (if you choose to even have a body).

Even if it turns out the brain is some sort of quantum computer random numbers machine, this has little relation to consciousness. The more we learn about the brain, the more it seems consciousness is just a product of the organ. I think you would be hard pressed to find a reasonable argument for dualism. The reality is, quantum phenomena do little to open the door to that possibility. If anything, they raise questions about free will, but not consciousness
 
the Transhumanist movements is predicting the ability to upload our minds into the "cloud" and then download it into a separate body (if you choose to even have a body).

TBBT Sheldon tries to determine when is he going to die - YouTube

Joking aside - Transhumanism fascinates me - and I wrestle with what role my faith will play in the events leading up to and beyond the Singularity.

Even if it were theoretically possible to map your brain, atom for atom at any given time, then 'rebuild' that map using materials that aren't your own, the new 'entity' wouldn't be any more you than would a genetic clone. The entity would share your memories, emotions, mental state, etc, - it would even fool your friends into believing it was you - but it would be a separate being. You would no longer exists, but the new being would be convinced it was You. It would be picking up where you left off, but with the benefit of the illusion of all your prior experiences. A mind fuck if there ever was one
 
Even if it turns out the brain is some sort of quantum computer random numbers machine, this has little relation to consciousness. The more we learn about the brain, the more it seems consciousness is just a product of the organ. I think you would be hard pressed to find a reasonable argument for dualism. The reality is, quantum phenomena do little to open the door to that possibility. If anything, they raise questions about free will, but not consciousness
So, do you think it is possible for your consciousness to be backed up onto a hard drive (or whatever) some day? If so - wouldn't this be the very definition of dualism (as it relates to mind/body - not necessarily the Gnostic/Platonic version of the term.
 
Even if it were theoretically possible to map your brain, atom for atom at any given time, then 'rebuild' that map using materials that aren't your own, the new 'entity' wouldn't be any more you than would a genetic clone.
That's interesting that you say that. That's how many "religious" people feel.

I haven't come to a conclusion yet.
 
So, do you think it is possible for your consciousness to be backed up onto a hard drive (or whatever) some day? If so - wouldn't this be the very definition of dualism (as it relates to mind/body - not necessarily the Gnostic/Platonic version of the term.

No, I don't believe it's possible. That's what I meant by it being a different being. The physical state of your brain could theoretically be mapped out atom by atom and rebuilt with organic materials in the exact same state. But You (ie, the person from whom they mapped the state) would not be transported into the new entity; but somewhat paradoxically, the new entity would believe it to be you. And would believe that he had been transported
 
That's interesting that you say that. That's how many "religious" people feel.

I haven't come to a conclusion yet.

I think you're maybe reading it in a way I hadn't intended. The new entity would be a new organism (we're talking about rebuilding atom for atom. creating organic material). The old you would be cease to exist. As if you were replaced by a pod person.

Actually, to be more clear, it could theoretically then be possible to map your physical brain state at any given time, then build, atom for atom, particle for particle, another being from that map, while not destroying the original. Would you then believe your consciousness exists in two separate organisms? Because the state of the new entity's mind would be exactly the same as yours at the time it was mapped. It would have the illusion of every experience you've ever had. It would believe that it had existed as long as you had
 
Back
Top Bottom