[pastures]

This thread is for those of us with questions to ask them. I will endeavour to answer them as best as i can (by that i mean a COMPLETE answer). Others are free to answer as well. Please keep the discussion civil. Also, I can only answer based on my own views, understanding and experiences. I am a Christian but I have an open view towards the supernatural since we only understand a small part of how it operates. I have also been trained in scientific analysis practically my whole life and I try not to take too many things for granted (other than the fact that i do exist). I like to work with as few assumptions as possible and develop the explanation from first principles.

The first question i would like to discuss is Who am I? Or put another way, What are human beings? Our entire perception of reality must first be grounded in the knowledge of ourselves. We perceive the universe in relation to ourselves. This is the first question we should ask. Know thyself.

[wolf_2099]

How can you know yourself when we are ever changing?

[pastures]

In any religious discussion (i use the term "religion" loosely. i do not like that word), people make an implicit assumption. They assume that the human soul exists. Recently, within the last 100 years, ultra-rationalists have appeared who deny the existence of the human soul. They argue that humans (indeed, life) can be broken down into a unique set equations or wavefronts (as in brain waves). Thus, it is possible to digitise a human being by using a computer programme that has complex enough algorithms that completely replicate how he thinks. The logical conclusion of this is that humans might possibly evolve (given enough time) into machine/digital non-physical beings living in some super-dimension. The ultra-rationalists deny the existence of the supernatural.

However, this ignores the vast body of experience the human race has with the supernatural realm. The problem is that these ultra-rationalists have not been exposed to the workings of the supernatural realm, and hence are able to conveniently dismiss it as a fantasy. Unfortunately for them, the supernatural realm does indeed exist and it does affect the natural realm. The proof is out there. I myself have had supernatural encounters. It is not something i can deny nor excuse as some as yet unexplainable scientific phenomenon. The reason why i cannot do that is because my experiences involve direct contact with a supernatural entity. In fact, only if a supernatural experience involves another living entity can we then dismiss science as being inadequate in explaining our world. Any other (alleged) supernatural experience is not reason enough to dismiss science as the complete explanation of our universe.

I am not the only one who has had encounters with supernatural entities. There are many others who have done so, and continue to do so on a regular basis. These people do not and cannot deny the existence of the supernatural. The proof is out there if you are looking for it. May i just add a word of warning that most of the proof out there can be harmful to you. The one encounter that really did it for me was not a good encounter. Please look for your proof in safe places (e.g. do not try to talk to the dead).

To edit with the rest of the answer. Pls do not reply to this yet as it is incomplete. You can post your own answer to the question "what are we?"

wolf: what makes us human should not change, insofar as we remain human.

Mods: can someone help me change the topic to "Q&A"? thanks in advance.

To answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related

[Dolorous Menhir]

pastures;264290 said:

They argue that humans (indeed, life) can be broken down into a unique set equations or wavefronts (as in brain waves). Thus, it is possible to digitise a human being by using a computer programme that has complex enough algorithms that completely replicate how he thinks. The logical conclusion of this is that humans might possibly evolve (given enough time) into machine/digital non-physical beings living in some super-dimension.

I've never seen anyone argue this.

My question is:

Can you provide an example of such a statement from an "ultra-rationalist"?

[Skywalker]

pastures;264276 said:

This thread is for those of us with questions to ask them. I will endeavour to answer them as best as i can (by that i mean a COMPLETE answer). Others are free to answer as well. Please keep the discussion civil. Also, I can only answer based on my own views, understanding and experiences. I am a Christian but I have an open view towards the supernatural since we only understand a small part of how it operates. I have also been trained in scientific analysis practically my whole life and I try not to take too many things for granted (other than the fact that i do exist). I like to work with as few assumptions as possible and develop the explanation from first principles.

The first question i would like to discuss is Who am I? Or put another way, What are human beings? Our entire perception of reality must first be grounded in the knowledge of ourselves. We perceive the universe in relation to ourselves. This is the first question we should ask. Know thyself.

Very interesting thread here.

First a sidebar... I'd like to point out that the emboldened key words/ phrases in your opening post tell me that you are influenced by: Rene Descartes, and The Matrix trilogy. Anyway...

pastures;264290 said:

(snip) The logical conclusion of this is that humans might possibly evolve (given enough time) into machine/digital non-physical beings living in some super-dimension. The ultra-rationalists deny the existence of the supernatural.

However, this ignores the vast body of experience the human race has with the supernatural realm. The problem is that these ultra-rationalists have not been exposed to the workings of the supernatural realm, and hence are able to conveniently dismiss it as a fantasy. Unfortunately for them, the supernatural realm does indeed exist and it does affect the natural realm.

(snip!) Any other (alleged) supernatural experience is not reason enough to dismiss science as the complete explanation of our universe.

I am not the only one who has had encounters with supernatural entities. There are many others who have done so, and continue to do so on a regular basis. These people do not and cannot deny the existence of the supernatural. The proof is out there if you are looking for it. (snip)

Now, besides pointing to a posisble Dan Simmons/ techno-singularist/ post-humanist influence when it comes to the wavefront thing, I have to raise some not so trivial points:

1) COMPLETE answers do not exist as far as science (as it stands today) is concerned. Therefore your attempt to formulate them in a rationalist/ scientific frame is in itself unscientific.

2) You say "We perceive the universe in relation to ourselves." and you also say "Any other (alleged) supernatural experience is not reason enough to dismiss science as the complete explanation of our universe."

Going by your logic, unless one has a supernatural experience of one's own, one has no objective evidence that a 'supernatural' world is out there.

3) Shoot me for an agnostic pig, but I have found it difficult to reconcile religion/ dogma (in the broad sense of the word) with scientific thought. That is because religion is based on faith, where one assumes one is right, and science is based on skepticism, where one assumes one is wrong until proven right. They may be trying to answer the same questions, but they are very different beasts.

My questions for you then are very basic and go to the purpose of this thread.

a) Why these questions?
Who are you answering them for?
c) How do you plan to reconcile rationalism and religion?

A statement of your first principles/ intended audience if you please...

PS: I don't mean to be patronizing with the influence deductions... that was just something I tend to do - spot influences.

[tharinock]

You state that experience with the supernatural is unsafe, so i am going to assume that you are talking about near death experiences? Any perceived supernatural influence can simply be described as the brain attempting to rationalize as to how you could have lived. True, the odds are a million to one, but for each person who has a near death experience, another million die. Statistically speaking, some people will survive in any given situation given enough cases.

[pastures]

No Tharinock. Near death experiences are not sufficient to prove that the supernatural exists. That is my whole point. Only an encounter with a supernatural being is sufficient (even then you can choose to believe whatever you want). But assuming you were in your right state of mind, rational, etc, etc, and there was a spiritual entity that interacted with you (that is, demonstrable cause and effect), then that is reasonable proof that the supernatural exists.

My warning relates to the widespread prevalence of harmful encounters, much more so than wholesome encounters.

[Cold Iron]

Skywalker;264811 said:

3) Shoot me for an agnostic pig, but I have found it difficult to reconcile religion/ dogma (in the broad sense of the word) with scientific thought. That is because religion is based on faith, where one assumes one is right, and science is based on skepticism, where one assumes one is wrong until proven right. They may be trying to answer the same questions, but they are very different beasts.

Actually I would say that it's because of our conscious and unconscious mind. Where our conscious mind is rational our unconscious mind is emotional.

[pastures]

Oops. I missed out a whole bunch of replies.

My definition of an ultra rationalist is someone who denies the supernatural and only accepts the existence of the natural world.

Skywalker: More interesting qns which i welcome. Not sure i can totally answer them though, but will try my best.

Yes i recognise it is from The Matrix (which is one of my faves), but i was actually taking it from Sun Tzu, not Descartes.

I agree that what we know of science does not yet explain everything. When i say "complete" and "from first principles", i mean that the argument follows first from some basic assumptions (which i hope are not too unreasonable), and then slowly builds. I will try to address all sides of an issue (if mulitple sides exist).

Re: Q2. Yes. That is true. You can use logic/science to explain almost everything. Basically, you can show that God need not exist for the universe to exist. It is only when one has a supernatural encounter that one can then, within reason, infer that the supernatural realm exists. Of course, most people do not and cannot deny the existence of their soul. But i am talking aobut those who do deny the soul.

"Religion" as u put it IS based on faith. There is always some basic assumption somewhere. For the "religious" (i hate that term), it is that the soul exists. But even for science, we must employ some faith. We assume that we exist, for example, and that the universe can be understood and explained by man.

I don't think science is based on scepticism at all. In fact, science attempts to explain how the world works. It is more explorative and explanative than sceptical. All scientific theories are just that. They are just theories until the data proves/disproves them as wrong or as Laws. Yet for many theories, we hold them to be the gospel truth.

This thread is for discussion on exactly these very issues you raise (as you put it rationalism vs religion. it is one of the central questions). Anyone can offer their own answer, not just me. If you're not interested, and are already set in your mind, then fine. But if you want to discuss, then let's discuss.

Anyway, i have not even finished my original post yet. So let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Cold Iron]

pastures;264917 said:

This thread is for discussion on exactly these very issues you raise (as you put it rationalism vs religion. it is one of the central questions). Anyone can offer their own answer, not just me. If you're not interested, and are already set in your mind, then fine. But if you want to discuss, then let's discuss.

I gave mine above if you're interested.

Also, who did you encounter and how do you know he was supernatural?

[Zanth13]

Some one mentioned Descartes earlier, and I find his philosophy fascinating... at least how he attempted to start over with everything philosophical and build up from nothing.

He is the originator of “I think therefore I am" He started off taking anything that had even the remote possibility of being untrue and not accepting it. Which included his own existence. The first two "truths" he discovered were

1. He exist (I think there for I am)
2. God exist (we could not conceive a "perfect" being unless one existed to implant such a notion in us, creatures of imperfection)

I cannot agree with his logic about god, (not that I think there couldn’t be one) because it bases it off an assumption about the limits of man, but all his thoughts were fascinating to me...

So what are we? Well we are Conscious creatures, who are aware of ourselves and a limited reality around us.

What I have been contemplating lately is reality. We can only experience so much with our senses and our minds that can we every truly understand the "real reality" that is round us?

[tharinock]

pastures, i have to disagree with you in the sense that one of the most basic scientific laws is that we don't know everything. Science is figuring out the most likely state of the universe through observation. Scientific Law is not immutable, and if someone finds solid proof that laws such as the gravity theory are wrong, the scientific community embraces it. Religion, on the other hand, tends to be based off of faith. Religion states that we do understand the basics of everything, and provides a simple solution as to how the universe is possible. It is less accepting to change, due to the fact that its basic tenets come from its books, whereas science's books come from its basic tenets.

[pastures]

And that is why i do not like the term "religion". Anyway, you guys have jumped onto the bandwagon waaaay too early. I haven't even finished up my original post. It's getting a bit sidetracked at the moment.

To address your point, Tharinock, religion is bad. Religion is a man-made institution that can be subverted to its own ends, including, but not limited to, the propagation of religious ideologies.

In essence, what i'm trying to say, is that a reasonable faith (or "religion" as most pple use the term), would be akin to science in that it allows one to test everything.

And also another point, just as we don't know everything about the natural realm, so too we do not know everything about the supernatural realm (if it does exist). But that does not stop us from gaining at least some understanding of it, and how it operates.

[Dolorous Menhir]

It's strange. You claim to have undergone a scientific education "practically my whole life," and yet your grasp of scientific issues suggests that education consisted of memorising fundamentalist talking points.

It doesn't help your credibility that you strongly claim the mantle of scientific knowledge and then proceed make one (at best) questionable scientific statement after another.

This "Stop hassling me, I haven't finished my original post yet!" business is pretty ridiculous too. You should've written it out in full and then posted it. The discussion could have then begun. All you are doing is giving the strong impression that your intentions are to be kept under a veil of uncertainty, so you can easily shift your arguments and conclusions by constantly claiming they haven't been fully expressed or understood yet.

[Cold Iron]

Relax DM, he hasn't made an argument yet, when he does, then tear him apart.

@zanth: our understanding of reality is relative to our place in it.

@tharinock: religions change all the time

@pastures: science is also a man made institution, which can also be subverted. And DM is right. Make a point. Or if you just want to tell us about your ghost encounter, do so.

[Macros]

I was just about to create a thread with something thats been irritating me for a while.
I've not read much of the bible, I'll freely admit that, so this issue may have been cleared up in the big book, its an issue raised by a few rabid christians that I used to go to school with and I've never got a satisfactory answer outa them.

Ok, Heaven is where the good living god-fearing people go when they kick the proverbial bucket. Hell is where the non repenting/ unbelieving people go, fine, thats simple and dandy.
My question is, is it (according to the faith, becasue aforementioned rabid christians assert it is) required that you believe in God and pray and the like to get to heaven or is simply being a good person enough?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I think the standard answer is you MUST believe in God. Some Christian religions believe that belieaf and being a good person is enough, other religions think that you need to do more than that. But, I'm pretty sure they all agree that if you don't believe in God, you don't go.

[Skywalker]

Macros;343063 said:

Ok, Heaven is where the good living god-fearing people go when they kick the proverbial bucket. Hell is where the non repenting/ unbelieving people go, fine, thats simple and dandy.
My question is, is it (according to the faith, becasue aforementioned rabid christians assert it is) required that you believe in God and pray and the like to get to heaven or is simply being a good person enough?

I'm not a Christian.. but have read parts of the King James Bible...

On Heaven and Hell, what I understand is the ideas of Heaven and Hell as final places for saints and sinners isn't really explicit in the Bible. The images of these places as angelic and puffy cloudy/ infernal and demonic are relatively recent inventions.

The idea is that 'heaven' and 'hell' are temporary vaults holding those that were virtuous or not in their lives. Once Christ returns for the day of Judgment, the 'Kingdom of Heaven' will be setup on earth, everyone resumes living (with a more perfect body and spirit) and there will be 'heaven on earth'.

The emphasis here being on the temporariness of heaven and hell. Also, the bible itself does not promise either pleasure or pain (from what I know) in heaven and hell. Most of that stuff (esp the seven circles of hell) is coming from the imaginations of people like Dante

EDIT to add: And yes, you have to believe to be redeemed by Christ

[Macros]

ahh, the crux of the issue then.
What about good peopple who have never heard of christ or been exposed to the christian faith? are they automatically condemed to holding in hell till the day of judgement?

[Obdigore]

Macros;343093 said:

ahh, the crux of the issue then.
What about good peopple who have never heard of christ or been exposed to the christian faith? are they automatically condemed to holding in hell till the day of judgement?

No, because the bible says that Armageddon and the time of judgement will not come until everyone has had a chance to hear the word of god.

This is from a Jehovahs Witness' upbringing, who do read the bible more than I see in many other christian religions. I cannot comment on the personal reading habits of those in other christian religions.