jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (58 posts)

Religious Creationists and Scientific Atheists, is there a middle?

  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    Can you be an Creationist Atheist or a Religious Scientist? Is it possible or are you either one or the other?

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There are christians that accept evolution and there are christian scientists. 

      Not sure about 'creationist atheists' - maybe they believe in aliens?  Pastafarians are parody creation atheists - I can call myself a Pastafarian as a joke.

      I've known people that did science degrees that were christians.  I was actually one, but tried to explain away anything that didn't agree at first.

      I doubt there will be many conversions of scientists, just creationist christians that decide to study science with their religious bias already firmly in place.  Maybe they readjust to fit evolution with their belief in God?

      The huge majority of scientists (something like 99%)  believe in evolution, whether they believe in God or not.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I've met a couple of atheists who believe in an intelligent universe.

        1. simeonvisser profile image89
          simeonvisserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Even so, an intelligent universe would not be the same as a created universe (although it could be that a creator was involved in creating an intelligent universe...).

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            atheists will not agree, they would say its the same potato...though I do think they are not.

          2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            the universe could be conscious and consciously evolving through choice, through systems of behavior. Organized behavior patterns with deliberate results. But does that mean the universe is not creating itself? Does that mean G-d is the universe? See G-d is a concept outside of anything provable. You can assign any form of intelligence of nature to G-d but then that would be you assigning it, you are not necessarily proving G-d exists.

            1. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              okay, so recognising ordered patterns, but that doesn't mean an intelligent designer?  But intelligence is a function of the brain?  So really is about patterns in universe, not intelligence

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                that is actually the conundrum. What is intelligence? I would link you to discussions about this at TED, if you have missed it from previous forums.

                We think we know intelligence, but we don't have an accurate way of describing it.  It is intricately tied to consciousness which we too have difficulty defining.

                As an overview of the scientific discussion:

                http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitiv … igence.htm

                On a new theory emerging:

                http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_o … uting.html

                So, depending on the definition, the universe is intelligent--or not.

                1. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  so it depends on whether one thinks their consciousness is tied up in the brain or not?  As mentions multiple intelligences relating to consciousness.

                  Given that all organs seem to be replaceable except the brain, and that someone can be on life support but brain-dead (and artificially kept 'alive'), and that brain damage changes so much about the person, then there is plenty of evidence to suggest that consciousness is a product of the brain.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    it depends on a lot of things. see consciousness is nothing but a pulsating wave-like flow of energy. so does that mean anything that has the same pulsating wavelike flow of energy is conscious? What about that pulsating energy causes us to have the sensation of thought?  Why does memory become remembered? What chooses the memory to be remembered?   Big big questions.

                    For more thought provoking ideas on consciousness...

                    http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_ … crets.html

                  2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    there are levels of consciousness, it has now been established that even plants are conscious and are intelligent.

                    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/stefa … gence.html

        2. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          but not an intelligent designer?

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            there is no such thing as chaos in a timescale, everything eventually reveals its patterns in different lengths of time. grains of sand always fall into a cone at some point.

            1. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              wouldn't let me post under your question about aspie.  I was wondering if you might be aspie, from other thread, being eccentric, having a unique viewpoint and also you wrote a hub about evolution of autism. 

              My son is a rigid aspie.  It was thru his diagnosis that I found out I am also aspie, but not as obvious (females are usually more subtle in presentation). 

              I had more rigid, ODC tendencies as a child - would spend hours practising piano etc & I had very strict parents & of course received black & white views from christianity.

              I am more flexible & creative now, but I am more interested in truth than preserving people's feelings (as many aspies are).

              I have a scientific and artistic mind, but suck at maths & don't understand politics, including work politics.  Social interactions drain me immensely, with all the effort in being 'nice' (not that am a horrible person, I just get misinterpreted as such).

              I've written some hubs about our AS & food sensitivities - more to come - see what I've written then ask

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I am not aspie, my husband is (according to the doctor) but he'll deny it. I however was a prodigy as a child particularly in the arts. Did figure out math problems without knowing theorems and such, had problems fitting in sometimes. Sometimes I wonder but then, I'm pin sharp with social cues and I could live in the grey comfortably and very imprecise when it comes to time. I would qualify more under ADD. But then, even that is a stretch. So I could be in some kind of spectrum. But then, it is as of yet to be assigned a name.
                But who knows.

                1. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  but you connect with an Aspie to marry them, so you must be pretty open-minded - you do seem to have some original viewpoints, typical of aspies.
                  My hubby is not Aspie, but has some ADHD traits (which our son also has).    I actually think it is all personality traits (to extremes) - people that aren't socially orientated.  My hubby is the only person in the world bothers to try to understand me.
                  These categories are all man-made constructions.  There is often much overlap btwn the different syndromes.  I have the organisational & time difficulty too, plus am hopeless recalling names (I'm a visual & analytical thinker, not a useless facts collector thinker).  I can't even remember my own phone number, yet I was one of the top students at school and have a science degree.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hmm...my mother in law said that it could be both of us, but I don't know. I do have a strange wiring and my mom said I could play for hours by myself doing the things that I do. I could have ADD, girl aspie thing going on there. But...did you take a test?

                    it's possible. I'll check your diets, if anything, it might be good in weight loss given the amount of stuff I can't eat.

    2. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Religious Creationists and Scientific Atheists, is there a middle?
      Isn't that poor monkey already in the middle? big_smile

      James.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ape, james...ape. lol

    3. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      Any thing is possible. Perhaps you stop being either or the moment you can shut down your perceptions and just be.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        spoken like Buddha wink

  2. Beelzedad profile image60
    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago

    "When you wish upon a star... "

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "your dreams come true
      faith is kind he brings to those who love
      the sweet fulfillment of...placebo effect that is quantified in countless studies."

  3. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    sorry, ape. lol

    Religious Creationists ~
    First, a Religious Creationist could just be one who studies the parameters of existing or tangible nature, using a specific set of rules or standards -with or without sensational practices or applications (although it is highly unlikely). However, all known theologies have or have had there foundations laid based on creation ideologies, (not just Christianity -which is a baby compared to other larger sects like Baal, Hebrew, Jewish, Islamic, Vedas, etc). All of these theologies interact with creation on an elemental level; a level of energy perception and its applications defined as reality or tangible nature (i.e. rocks, stars, water vapor).

    Scientific Atheists -
    This is a challenging label. Reason being is all proclaimed atheists have or have had some from of engagement with the aforementioned. So, this leaves a few stigmas. First, as an atheist, they have seemingly loosed themselves from sensational practices of those ideologies; still carry the core information of those ideologies and practices as information to be used or dismissed based on the individual; have gathered further information from former sensationalists, now deemed atheists and filtered that information for the purposes of either solely disputing or refuting the viewpoint of those theologies. Else have altogether relinquished those ideologies and information by or through an new method of observation that has never engaged said theologies at any time, making it pure atheism. The addition of Scientist, makes things generally more complex, as science is to be the simple study, observation and documentation of creation WITHOUT application. So a Scientific Atheist should be one who is void of sensationalism and merely observes tangible nature and documents those observations.

    Yet, we know, it is nearly impossible for a human being who has information of any kind to withstand application. Humanism practically demands application of any or all findings (discoveries) else these finding seem pointless and impractical aka useless information.

    Hence, by application, a Scientific Atheist must yield to some form of sensationalism (call it faith, curiosity or compulsion) to make those tangible things valuable, relevant and satisfy the human condition.

    James.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      it stops at function and application.  you cannot use science to prove G-d created everything because first you have to prove that there is a G-d and define what everything is.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed.
        The necessity of proof still baffles me, really, as to why and how --which ironically are the fundamental basics of the "reason" for science and theology. To observe document the how and why.

        Neither actually can provide proofs without application. So it is the process and "Hume" experience, that ultimately defines what proofs are or are not. Yet, Hume himself would say those "proofs" are fallible by their application, since they are driven by humanism and not purity of purpose (better said, a lack of humanism or condition and a complete reliance of the elements themselves to provide the process, the observation, the tangible, intangible and ultimately the experience of that element).

        My neighbor is always crowing about let go and let G-d, yet without his application of "let go/let G-d", the experience he is documenting is impure --by observation and sensation.

        This is why I constantly repeat Equation/Science is the masculine form of humanism and sensationalism the feminine. Both terribly lacking in experience by their own admission, techniques and full priori because of necessity.

        There is no true difference between them accept their applications of a singular connection --their minds.

        James.

  4. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    now they are homing in on certain brain cells in the hippocampus region..these are cells firing in response to stimuli. cells.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Brain plasticity too. We have the ability to decode yet we do not or have not yet fired the neurons that are able to perceive more of our existence. They are hoping to discover how to activate the neurons that will lead to self healing of sorts.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry I don't understand this. was there a typo?

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yea sorry I read it again and edited.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            oh, that would be the excuse. Scientists need an excuse to get the grant. but I bet my bottom dollar they could care less about the function as long as somebody pays them to figure it out.

  5. pennyofheaven profile image80
    pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago

    Did the edited version make sense?

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      weren't we just talking of placebos? why would they excite belief in healing? Is the study being done on the cerebellum or the Pre-frontal cortex?

      1. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes we were on another thread.

        All parts of the brain. They have a you tube video some where where they removed half of a girls brain because of some medical condition. The brain then began creating the neural pathways that were in the side they took out. Into the side that was left.

        Apparently according to brain plasticity we have the ability to unlearn and relearn or just plain learn.

        We receive around 400 million bits on information per second. But our brain only decodes around 20000 per seconds. They conclude that we are not using the maximum of our brain power, (which has always been known) yet we can learn to. Their studies shows that when learning new stuff or perceiving new stuff, certain neurons fire up and create new pathways.

        The power of the mind when it comes to placebo can illustrate the use of the brain when one believes in the placebo. It can heal in many occassions because the neurons of belief in a certain thing have fired up. So it wasn't the placebo but the brain power.

        In my view the mind (consciousness if you like) uses the brain as a conduit.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think the formation of the brain itself formed as a habit of life. It repeats the entire process of evolution of life on earth from plant to snake to birds, to mammals and then there's us, apes with developed PFCs that has a specific function, to predict outcomes. Plan, deliberate, strategize. See events before they unfold. What pushed evolution this way, habits of choice of response to the stimuli in the environment. The mind is creating the body based on its needs.

          Why is there a brain, because the cells, those eukaryotes needed to band together to survive better until life became increasingly complex individuals that work in unison to continue to survive.

          So what is consciousness? When did we start having it in our evolution towards humanity? Was the first cell conscious. It was conscious of something. It wanted to live.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this




            Consciousness as I understand it, for the most part, cannot be defined or desribed in its entirety. Purely because of its infinite capabilities. A description that might be acceptable within the paramaters of our perceptions is that it is energy. Our limited ability to perceive its true nature however can not define it.

            Everything is in and of this consciousness so yes would have been in the first cell.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              or even before that..if we are going to stretch it. It is in the first proteins. Or even before that. the first proteins came from a soup of chemicals that were actually formed by elements that were expelled by the first stars that do follow the same darwinian style evolution. Why did these repeating patterns on nature result in consciousness? Life updated into us...because it chose to out of necessity. why is the protein balancing itself? Why did it become a snake like thing that grew a membrane to protect itself? Why did it want to protect itself. Is protein conscious? Lots of questions, intriguing possible answers.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes agree.

  6. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    I will definitely visit your hubs if you have some about that. I want to know if I'm inducing my daughter's symptoms by insisting on giving her candy sometimes. Or go gurt. will be your fan.

  7. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    I'm a true athiest and as far as an athiest who believes in creation or whatever, that's their thing. What a person believes in is their business as long as it doesn't interfere with others.

 
working