Dec 17 2012: Should we? Life is about self-expression; if we think we know God then yes, but otherwise no. I think that there is a case for feeling gratitude; I feel it immensely. But towards what I can't think for an atheist; to thank randomness seem a bit pointless.
To Whom?
I don't call on atheists to start 'believing', just because they want someone to thank. The word 'belief' has become hijacked by religion to mean mindless acceptance of rules and certain facts. An atheist I would see as the opposite - a thinker.
But you see I don't see the choice as between science and religion.
I see the choice as between science-which-sees-God and science-which doesn't-see-Him YET.
Since the Galileo incident science thinks it has been given free-reign to discover truth. In fact it is working blindly on the unwritten hypothesis that He isn't there, & all it produces comes with that hidden assumption. If we want the real truth from science (knowledge) we will have to wait until it can work without that assumption.
Science/physics has many inadequacies which are not widely displayed and this is unfortunate since most thinkers grow to trust its wisdom and professed objectivity and are therefore denied real truth about existence. One day this will change, science will become truly objective, it will be humbled by its apparent previous ignorance.
The thing is religion has got it wrong and so has science/physics!
What we are ultimately talking about is whether the origins of everything are material, or whether they are spiritual. In other words did it all start with a big bang, or did it start with some primordial spiritual (consciousness) awakening somewhere in the nothingness and that consciousness then managed to work out how to make matter.
You can be thankful to God or not, He won't mind, our origins are spiritual, we are all of that same oneness, our consciousness cannot be destroyed and I say this not from belief, but from scientifically obtained evidence, knowledge.
Apr 24 2012: I suggest that these forces are so strong that they override the struggle to find out the truth about us, nature and the universe. We do not yet live in a scientific age where the desire for truth is uppermost, The uppermost driver is reputation and acceptance of the fact that all phenomena must arise from 3 dimensional matter.
If there was a god, he would be quietly waiting for the humility of physicists to gain the upper hand and start searching with a truly open mind.
There already is such a theory put forth by a reputable professor of physics in a peer reviewed journal, science doesn't seem to be ready to accept it yet.
Apr 24 2012: Scientific Method and Truth
Most non-physicists wouldn't attempt to understand the 10 dimensions of string theory, and therefore understand even less what other aspects of physics are still unknown. But they are nevertheless there.
What if the scientists responsible for the most expensive physics experiment yet (LHC) were actually to admit that its failure had shown their current physics paradigm to have no evidence to back it up?
What if the cosmologists admitted that after years of searching they no longer expected to find the dark matter and dark energy required to support the big-bang hypothesis?
What if the neurologists and those researching consciousness admitted that they now accepted a fundamental physical understanding of it and this meant that it could not arise from 3 dimensional matter?
I am suggesting here that the current 3-dimensional-matter-only paradigm has several significant gaps, gaps that are not readily admitted by the scientists concerned and so not understood by the majority.
What if a replacement physics paradigm showed some form of hierarchy to the structure of matter, a hierarchy which clearly necessitated an outside-of-time dimension and at the same time showed how Einstein's relativity had come about? This very same dimension was then also being used to allow consciousness to perform the way it does?
I suggest that acceptance of these facts would require some form of humility. I'm hypothesising that were this situation to arise, those physicists concerned would be forced to give up the notion that the universe can be owned through the intellect and instead would be forced to accept that it was actually somebody else's. The physicists' ethos is that all phenomena are emergent from 3 dimensional matter and this fact must be implicitly accepted by all who wish to participate in the physics scene. The forces against such a change are psychological, financial, cultural and personal.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Should we feel gratitude for our life? To whom?
To Whom?
I don't call on atheists to start 'believing', just because they want someone to thank. The word 'belief' has become hijacked by religion to mean mindless acceptance of rules and certain facts. An atheist I would see as the opposite - a thinker.
But you see I don't see the choice as between science and religion.
I see the choice as between science-which-sees-God and science-which doesn't-see-Him YET.
Since the Galileo incident science thinks it has been given free-reign to discover truth. In fact it is working blindly on the unwritten hypothesis that He isn't there, & all it produces comes with that hidden assumption. If we want the real truth from science (knowledge) we will have to wait until it can work without that assumption.
Science/physics has many inadequacies which are not widely displayed and this is unfortunate since most thinkers grow to trust its wisdom and professed objectivity and are therefore denied real truth about existence. One day this will change, science will become truly objective, it will be humbled by its apparent previous ignorance.
The thing is religion has got it wrong and so has science/physics!
What we are ultimately talking about is whether the origins of everything are material, or whether they are spiritual. In other words did it all start with a big bang, or did it start with some primordial spiritual (consciousness) awakening somewhere in the nothingness and that consciousness then managed to work out how to make matter.
You can be thankful to God or not, He won't mind, our origins are spiritual, we are all of that same oneness, our consciousness cannot be destroyed and I say this not from belief, but from scientifically obtained evidence, knowledge.
A comment on Conversation: If you have chance to perform a TED talk , what topic you will choose?
If there was a god, he would be quietly waiting for the humility of physicists to gain the upper hand and start searching with a truly open mind.
There already is such a theory put forth by a reputable professor of physics in a peer reviewed journal, science doesn't seem to be ready to accept it yet.
A comment on Conversation: If you have chance to perform a TED talk , what topic you will choose?
Most non-physicists wouldn't attempt to understand the 10 dimensions of string theory, and therefore understand even less what other aspects of physics are still unknown. But they are nevertheless there.
What if the scientists responsible for the most expensive physics experiment yet (LHC) were actually to admit that its failure had shown their current physics paradigm to have no evidence to back it up?
What if the cosmologists admitted that after years of searching they no longer expected to find the dark matter and dark energy required to support the big-bang hypothesis?
What if the neurologists and those researching consciousness admitted that they now accepted a fundamental physical understanding of it and this meant that it could not arise from 3 dimensional matter?
I am suggesting here that the current 3-dimensional-matter-only paradigm has several significant gaps, gaps that are not readily admitted by the scientists concerned and so not understood by the majority.
What if a replacement physics paradigm showed some form of hierarchy to the structure of matter, a hierarchy which clearly necessitated an outside-of-time dimension and at the same time showed how Einstein's relativity had come about? This very same dimension was then also being used to allow consciousness to perform the way it does?
I suggest that acceptance of these facts would require some form of humility. I'm hypothesising that were this situation to arise, those physicists concerned would be forced to give up the notion that the universe can be owned through the intellect and instead would be forced to accept that it was actually somebody else's. The physicists' ethos is that all phenomena are emergent from 3 dimensional matter and this fact must be implicitly accepted by all who wish to participate in the physics scene. The forces against such a change are psychological, financial, cultural and personal.
I suggest that these forces are so strong that t