Sounds fascinating. Please go into detail as to what exactly you mean by "known of by science". Are there physics equations which make predictions about how energy of this sort interacts with the material world? Or if not that, in what way is this energy known of by science?

I don't think that you're participating in this conversation with good intentions. So I'm done. If you want to do your own research, feel free.

Hmm, disappointing reaction to my curiosity. You say it's known of by science, it's a pretty natural evolution of the conversation for me to ask "in what way is this known of by science?" I don't know how that could be interpreted as disrespectful or whatever.

I will tentatively assume that there's no material you can point me to to demonstrate how this energy is known of by science, but I will remain open to that material in the future.

In a previous portion of this thread, the energy was referred to as "Kundalini" from ancient Hindu traditions. Which is most certainly known of by science. But would be rejected as "woo woo" by most materialists. — Bret Bernhoft

I'm confident, Bret, it's rejected as woo woo by most (almost all) scientists. :mask:

I guess there's a scientific counterpart to alternative facts going on.

:smirk:

Considering how rude you were, I can ignore you.

You must be insensitive to your own rudeness. That's understandable, most people have an easier time perceiving other people's rudeness than their own.

:up:

My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. — Gnomon

:lol: That is preposterous that an evolved species would think itself the ultimate ruler of the universe and so they make a god in their own image.

Unfortunately, Logos and Prime Mover might be rejected by Materialists*1 as unprovable Transcendent beings or forces. For me that's not a problem, because they are merely hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2, with no need for empirical proof, only logical consistency. And, since they have no "favorite people", they provide no reason for slavish religious worship. They also have no need to "violate" natural laws, since they are essentially the LawMakers. :smile: — Gnomon

Exactly, however, it might help if we resist using human pronouns when referring to logos or a prime mover. As I see it, humans imaged gods in their own image as she's and his's being happy or mad. With the Greek gods and goddesses, we can be aware of helpful concepts and reasoning, which may not be as true for some of the imagined beings in other cultures. I think the Sumerian story of our creation is about an extremely long drought and the return of climatic conditions that made returning to the valley possible. There is geological evidence of this. So we might not want to relate to the spirit of the river that was humanized in the story. Our ancient past is full of such imagined beings because it appears to be our nature to humanize what we experience, such as calling logos and the prime mover "they". Doing that makes what we are saying easier to understand than say, an explanation of quantum physics.

We are not naturally mathematically literate and many of us have a problem remembering complicated equations, whereas we easily remember the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf. There is a survival element in the stories of rocks that used to be beings and now mark the spot where water can be found. But how about this, even materialists have stories to explain our existence. We might want to believe these stories are true because they can be validated, but it is not uncommon for a scientific explanation to be proven wrong and it is prudent to keep our minds open and that possibility. That is why I like what you said, "hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2,".

Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it.
— Athena

No, significantly it is what religious leaders make it. Religious followers can only follow. — praxis

I am sorry, I do not follow what you are saying. You are saying "no" to what? You do not think religion is a story that shapes our thinking and behavior? Even atheists are sure what a god is and it is not possible to discuss logos and the prime mover with them because they absolutely can not give up their understanding of a humanized god. They absolutely insist all discussions of god match the Christian notion of a god and therefore it is impossible to discuss a notion of god as forces of nature with no human qualities.

Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter.
— Athena

The purpose of religion is to bind groups with a shared narrative, values, etc., not to teach ethics. In fact, religion limits moral development.

There is more to life than antiquated concepts and beliefs.

I agree that the materialist and the Christian prevent us from knowing truth and developing our concepts of the law. However, there is more to religion than worshipping a false god and the only way that antiquated problem will be resolved is to adjust the understanding of god and religion and therefore what we can talk about.

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith — Webster Dictionary

Democracy can be a religion. We can make truth our goal by changing the conversation about god and religion. Coming out of the Age of Enlightenment, that is what was happening and how we came to have a democracy. No one saw the principles of democracy in the Bible until there was literacy in the Greek and Roman classics and literacy in the classics unleashed human potential. In the Capitol Building of the US, there is a mural of the gods that make a democratic republic great. At that time in history, no one literally believed in those gods, but they were understood as concepts.

What is wrong today, is the 1958 National Defense Education Act prepared the young to be very literal and uncompromising. The materialism of some of them is as bad as interpreting the Bible literally. Democracy does not work today because we stopped teaching with the Conceptual Method and it is almost impossible to have open and meaningful discussions than advance our awareness of logos. Anyone who does not hold our understanding of truth is an idiot, right? And the way to deal with those idiots is to tell them their faults as flannel jesus did in his reply to my post.

Anyone who does not hold our understanding of truth is an idiot, right? And the way to deal with those idiots is to tell them their faults as flannel jesus did in his reply to my post. — Athena

I interpreted our exchange in exactly the opposite way. I never told you there's all these obvious problems with whatever your world view is. You said that about materialism. I don't think someone is an idiot for not being a materialist. I don't think you're an idiot at all.

Thomas Jefferson is a favorite American hero of mine. His time on the planet was a special period of human history. So it's interesting that you would mention his definition of pursuing happiness in relationship to the non-material.

In terms of a more robust historical type of education, I'm aware that medieval universities taught something known as the "quadrivium". Which was the effort to create well-rounded and balanced thinkers by focusing on arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music; cosmic languages. Today, as you point out, we are limited in our learning; at least when compared to the past.

So it is indeed the responsibility of the individual to seek out knowledge and wisdom, in order to find this sacred middle space. — Bret Bernhoft

I love you. :love: And our democracy will continue to self-destruct until we all know what you said.

Fortunately, someone was wise enough to introduce convicts to the classics and it was discovered these classics could be life-changing. Unfortunately, the Christian understanding of humans and God keeps us in the dark ages before the Renaissance brought back the knowledge of the Greek and Roman documents. People who study only the Bible are not literate enough to protect and defend democracy. They are waiting for a kingdom. :grimace:

My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. — Gnomon
:lol: That is preposterous that an evolved species would think itself the ultimate ruler of the universe and so they make a god in their own image. — Athena

To be clear, the "immaterial power" I was referring to is Logical Reasoning (including mathematics), which seems to have reached its pinnacle of evolution (to date) in the homo species. When we begin to allow non-human posters on this forum, I might need to be more circumspect in my language. :smile:

Exactly, however, it might help if we resist using human pronouns when referring to logos or a prime mover. — Athena

Plato & Aristotle apparently used abstract non-anthro-morphic notions of "Logos & Prime Mover" intentionally, to avoid implications of the humanoid deities of their day. Similarly, when I occasionally use the term "G*D" when referring to an unknown & unknowable creative/causal power behind the Big Bang, I often use un-gendered pronouns, such as "he/r" and "s/he". But I do so with tongue in cheek, imagining the "huh?" question mark above the head of the reader. :joke:

I am sorry, I do not follow what you are saying. You are saying "no" to what? — Athena

I pointed out that a religion is not "as we make it". It's highly dogmatic by nature, in other words, and when revisions are made it's by religious leaders. Followers are not free to make up their own beliefs and promote them within a religion. That would be considered heretical.

Even atheists are sure what a god is and it is not possible to discuss logos and the prime mover with them because they absolutely can not give up their understanding of a humanized god. — Athena

I'm aware of various of conceptions of God, some very unlike the one depicted in the Bible. I see no reason why an atheist would be unable to consider an inhuman God. Indeed, the God depicted in the Bible strikes me as extremely inhuman.

Also, religions don't all agree on logos and the prime mover. There is no prime mover in Buddhism, for instance, and they'd consider the dualism inherent in logos an expression of ignorance.

They absolutely insist all discussions of god match the Christian notion of a god and therefore it is impossible to discuss a notion of god as forces of nature with no human qualities. — Athena

It doesn't make any sense to me why an atheist would be unable to discuss the notion of god as a force of nature with no human qualities. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I was responding to your claim about a religion. Of course, individuals can have their own spiritual experiences and beliefs.

Democracy can be a religion. — Athena

No, that would be a Theocracy.

Anyone who does not hold our understanding of truth is an idiot, right? — Athena

Within religion, anyone who does not hold the "understanding" of Truth is considered to have no faith. I use scare quotes because no religion has understandable truths, by design. Ultimate truth requires ultimate authority, ensuring a hierarchy of leaders (who have special access to ultimate truth) and followers.

:100:

I pointed out that a religion is not "as we make it". It's highly dogmatic by nature, in other words, and when revisions are made it's by religious leaders. Followers are not free to make up their own beliefs and promote them within a religion. That would be considered heretical. — praxis

Your post is one of the most mentally stimulating posts I have read this year. I am going to say a lot and I am not sure how correct these new to me, ideas, are.

When I say it is as we make it, I mean our whole experience of life is as we make it. I don't mean we have manifested the earth, but what we do with it is what we, not a god, does with it. We have manifested New York and international enemies and friends. A religion is what we make it, because this is all about what we think and how we behave. Humans with words and the power of reason manifest their own reality. Their private perception of reality may have very little to do with facts. We all make up our own life story and we share some of our stories in common with others. That is called culture.

Even atheists are sure what a god is and it is not possible to discuss logos and the prime mover with them because they absolutely can not give up their understanding of a humanized god.
— Athena

I'm aware of various of conceptions of God, some very unlike the one depicted in the Bible. I see no reason why an atheist would be unable to consider an inhuman God. Indeed, the God depicted in the Bible strikes me as extremely inhuman.

God is a manifestation of thought- meaning we think it and it becomes a shared notion. Atheists can not argue against the existence of God without sharing the same notion of a God that they argue does not exist.

By a nonhuman god, I mean the prime mover and logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. The gods that are worshipped are made in the image of man. That is not so for the prime mover or logos. I do not mean a jealous, revengeful, punishing God is an inhuman God. :lol: Sometimes we can really get tripped up on our words. I am saying the power and glory is not a being with human traits.

Also, religions don't all agree on logos and the prime mover. There is no prime mover in Buddhism, for instance, and they'd consider the dualism inherent in logos an expression of ignorance.

Abrahamic religions most certainly do not have a concept that would lead to scientific thinking. they do not have a concept of a Prime Mover or logos. Their brains have zero thought patterns for thinking in such terms. I am not sure that is true of Hinduism or Buddhism. Buddhism can be very different from place to place. Some regions are more superstitious than others. And of course, some understanding of Hinduism is very superstitious and the highest level of thinking is patterned for logic and abstract thinking and therefore philosophical, the Siamese twin of science.


They absolutely insist all discussions of god match the Christian notion of a god and therefore it is impossible to discuss a notion of god as forces of nature with no human qualities.
— Athena

It doesn't make any sense to me why an atheist would be unable to discuss the notion of god as a force of nature with no human qualities. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I was responding to your claim about a religion. Of course, individuals can have their own spiritual experiences and beliefs.

I had no intention of saying an atheist can not think in scientific terms. But God is not science. Now if we say God is not any of the gods made in the image of humans, but God is the Prime Mover and logos, or nature, then we can use science to understand God. However, atheists refuse to do that!!! They shot themselves in the foot by refusing to use the word "God". That just proves all the religious people right because the Bible says there will be people who reject God and they are "evil" and reality is a fight of good over evil, and we are on the damn merry-go-round of arguing about God and no one can get off it.
The way to apply science to superstitious notions is to think in terms of a prime mover, logos, universal laws, and nature.

Democracy can be a religion.
— Athena

No, that would be a Theocracy.

Huh?

Theocracy-- a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
"his ambition is to lead a worldwide theocracy"

That is not true of a democracy because the damn God is the prime mover, logos, the laws of nature. Excuse my pagan emotive language but there we go with the merry-go-round. Who gets to define God? You just threw the prime mover and logos out the window and destroyed the reasoning of democracy. Can we discover the laws of the universe and base our laws on such knowledge? Isn't that fundamental to democracy?

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero

The word God comes from Germany after the fall of Rome. I am sure Cicero did not use that word, but our Christian understanding is so ingrained in our culture that we are forced to think of God in a very limited understanding of God. I read Cicero to say Logos, not the Christian God.




Anyone who does not hold our understanding of truth is an idiot, right?
— Athena

Within religion, anyone who does not hold the "understanding" of Truth is considered to have no faith. I use scare quotes because no religion has understandable truths, by design. Ultimate truth requires ultimate authority, ensuring a hierarchy of leaders (who have special access to ultimate truth) and followers.[/quote]

God is a manifestation of thought - meaning we think it and it becomes a shared notion. Atheists can not argue against the existence of God without sharing the same notion of a God that they argue does not exist. — Athena

The basic difference is that believers are 'bonded' in their shared belief system, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Atheists may be somewhat bonded in their shared beliefs but it barely compares with religious adherence. There may be authority figures for atheists, such as Dawkins or whoever, but they're not regarded as ultimate authorities who have special insight into the nature of reality. What they know anyone can know. Nothing needs to be taken on faith. This is a significant difference. There are other important differences that I won't bother to go into at this point.

By a nonhuman god, I mean the prime mover and logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. The gods that are worshipped are made in the image of man. That is not so for the prime mover or logos. I do not mean a jealous, revengeful, punishing God is an inhuman God. :lol: — Athena

I know what you meant. I just couldn't resist the irony. Nature is infinitely more cruel than any human could be. :smirk:

Abrahamic religions most certainly do not have a concept that would lead to scientific thinking. they do not have a concept of a Prime Mover or logos. Their brains have zero thought patterns for thinking in such terms. — Athena

You're quite wrong about this. Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Historically, Christianity has been and still is a patron of sciences.

They [atheists] shot themselves in the foot by refusing to use the word "God". That just proves all the religious people right because the Bible says there will be people who reject God and they are "evil" and reality is a fight of good over evil, and we are on the damn merry-go-round of arguing about God and no one can get off it. — Athena

Religions deliberatly use heratics (e.g., "the Bible says there will be people who reject God and they are evil") to shore up group identity by defining what they are not. It is a very effective tactic and that's why it is so widely used. Indeed, it's such an effective tactic that no one can get off it.

You just threw the prime mover and logos out the window and destroyed the reasoning of democracy. Can we discover the laws of the universe and base our laws on such knowledge? Isn't that fundamental to democracy? — Athena

I have no idea of what you're talking about here.

I suggest that you seriously consider what the actual purpose of religion is and why it exists. Also, consider if there's a difference between spirituality and religion.

I appreciate the love. That was a nice surprise.

Nature is infinitely more cruel than any human could be. :smirk: — praxis

The rock that rolls down a mountain and crushes a man is being cruel? Your wording is intellectually stimulating. Old age can be very cruel but that is getting too close to creating an evil being/force don't you think? Nature does not intend to be cruel, but that is a human perception of some physical changes. We may be tempted to appease the gods when we think of nature being cruel. This is really being nit picky but it is also an exploration of how nature became unnatural in our minds.

You're quite wrong about this. Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Historically, Christianity has been and still is a patron of sciences.

Please give me something from the Bible that demonstrates how this word of God brought us to science.

Religions deliberately use heratics (e.g., "the Bible says there will be people who reject God and they are evil") to shore up group identity by defining what they are not. It is a very effective tactic and that's why it is so widely used. Indeed, it's such an effective tactic that no one can get off it.

That is true however we don't need to prove them right. I say there is a God, it is logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe and it does not have human qualities. As Cicero said, it does not give us what we want when we burn candles and say prayers. Nature does not care- it just is. Now the argument is not about the existence of God. The argument is about the definition of God. I do not make the Christian right by denying there is a god.

I have no idea of what you're talking about here.

A Greek argument is everything has a purpose. Horses run. Birds fly. Humans reason. It is because we reason that is possible to argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning and can therefore govern ourselves with reason. This is opposed to being ruled by kings or the Church, which maintains power by killing the opposition to their power. The Kingdom of the Bible is not compatible with democracy and I will again say, the Bible is not a book for math and science.

'

I suggest that you seriously consider what the actual purpose of religion is and why it exists. Also, consider if there's a difference between spirituality and religion.

Well, let's see. It seems to me the most common purpose for Christians to be religious is fear! Next in importance is social acceptance and belonging. I remain silent as I care for older people who tell me how great God is. They need their belief as they face death. I have my belief about immortality too. I am not sure we are not reincarnated. I like to be open-minded about that.

For others, religion is about controlling the people. For many, when there were few desirable jobs, entering the church hierarchy was an excellent way to have a good standard of living especially when after the Protestant Reformation allowed preachers to have sex. I don't think the US would elect an atheist for president and for sure the winners use religion to get the votes. The presidents of the US have used Christianity to engage in wars. Billy Graham was behind uniting us against the communists by aligning us with God on our money and pledge of allegiance.

In some communities, Christians have greater control of education than in other communities. Teachers had to go to the Supreme Court to stop Texas from forcing teachers to teach creationism as equal to science. I am sure those Christians mean well and we do need to talk about being human and the agreements we should have. Right now both atheists and Christians are being a huge problem because they are both preventing us from having the discussion we need to have.

I appreciate the love. That was a nice surprise. — Bret Bernhoft

I am very passionate about education and democracy and I seriously do love it when someone is supportive of education and democracy. That is very rare today. It does require some literacy in Greek and Roman classics and it seems they have been replaced with German philosophers.

:love: In harmony with the subject an atheist but not a materialist, "The pen is stronger than the sword". The US forefathers risked everything for democracy and obviously, life is about more than matter.