Science Is Religion

[scienceisreligion]

http://scienceisreligion.wordpress.com/

[Wyvern]

Don't forget that the kind of scientific thinking that you're considering only came about when man realised that there was an order to the world and hence something worth thinking about. Before Monotheistic religions, man saw himself amidst a world of continuously unfolding miracles. Confident of there being order in the world, it became worthwhile investigating that order. This enterprise is just as valid no matter what process is responsible for the order.

Owing one's own existence to this process it would seem only natural to consider oneself in a position of some humility.

Yes! Humility to others.

"Don't forget that the kind of scientific thinking that you're considering only came about when man realised that there was an order to the world and hence something worth thinking about."

And lets also not forget that man first realized that there was order to the world after he belived that it existed! First commandment. Believe in only yourself.

Man didn't have to believe there was order in the world he knew it, his life depended on it. Until the recent discovery of refrigeration and mass transportation, humanities diet was largely determined by the orderly procession of seasons. Order was not something that had to be believed in it was experienced.

[scienceisreligion]

Don't forget that the kind of scientific thinking that you're considering only came about when man realised that there was an order to the world and hence something worth thinking about. Before Monotheistic religions, man saw himself amidst a world of continuously unfolding miracles. Confident of there being order in the world, it became worthwhile investigating that order. This enterprise is just as valid no matter what process is responsible for the order.

Owing one's own existence to this process it would seem only natural to consider oneself in a position of some humility.

Yes! Humility to others.

"Don't forget that the kind of scientific thinking that you're considering only came about when man realised that there was an order to the world and hence something worth thinking about."

And lets also not forget that man first realized that there was order to the world after he belived that it existed! First commandment. Believe in only yourself.

Man didn't have to believe there was order in the world he knew it, his life depended on it. Until the recent discovery of refrigeration and mass transportation, humanities diet was largely determined by the orderly procession of seasons. Order was not something that had to be believed in it was experienced.

To experience anything, you must first believe everything exists.

[Casper]

You needn't believe that 'everything' exists before you can experience 'anything'.
You don't even need to believe that what you are currently experiencing exists.

I'm also a bit confused by your previous conclusions. I don't understand how you reached "Man is God" from "Science predates religion".

Would you mind elaborating for the slow buffalo please? ^^;

[scienceisreligion]

You needn't believe that 'everything' exists before you can experience 'anything'.
You don't even need to believe that what you are currently experiencing exists.

I'm also a bit confused by your previous conclusions. I don't understand how you reached "Man is God" from "Science predates religion".

Would you mind elaborating for the slow buffalo please? ^^;

I think you're right... my use of language was wrong. Thanks for the correction. You need to believe that anything exists before you can experience anything.

But you first need to believe that you exist. That is step #1. I think, therefore I am.

Starting from science predates religion:

We know that any scientific theories which are essential to science, are done by man, not by any other supernatural entity. No supernatural entity creates scientific theories.
Since science predates religion, there is only one conclusion: Man is the one creating the belief of a God. Therefore, man is God.

We're using the scientific method to test the validity of God's existence to this day. We could even take this statement further, and conclude that we're using the scientific method to test the validity that we, ourselves, exist. (Replacing "God" for "Man") And that isn't a false statement to make, either.

[QED]

You need to believe that anything exists before you can experience anything.

But you first need to believe that you exist. That is step #1. I think, therefore I am.

The participatory anthropic principle would have it the other way around though:

Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.

Which is the correct interpretation? How in principle could we decide?

[scienceisreligion]

You need to believe that anything exists before you can experience anything.

But you first need to believe that you exist. That is step #1. I think, therefore I am.

The participatory anthropic principle would have it the other way around though:

Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.

Which is the correct interpretation? How in principle could we decide?

Interesting observation.

I think that the key lies in the last statement of that quote:

"The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives."

Once again, one cannot observe anything if one does not believe they themselves exist with a mind to observe. I would also agree that the participatory anthropic principle and quantum theory is in accordance with what I've been stating.

"Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer."

I think, that their logic is wrong. It should read something like this:

Quantum theory states that any unbelieved physical system remains in a superposed state of no possibility until it interacts with the mind of an observer.

[Casper]

I think you're right... my use of language was wrong. Thanks for the correction. You need to believe that anything exists before you can experience anything.

But you first need to believe that you exist. That is step #1. I think, therefore I am.

Starting from science predates religion:

We know that any scientific theories which are essential to science, are done by man, not by any other supernatural entity. No supernatural entity creates scientific theories.
Since science predates religion, there is only one conclusion: Man is the one creating the belief of a God. Therefore, man is God.

We're using the scientific method to test the validity of God's existence to this day. We could even take this statement further, and conclude that we're using the scientific method to test the validity that we, ourselves, exist. (Replacing "God" for "Man") And that isn't a false statement to make, either.

Interesting debate on quantum physics. I'll stay out of that arena while the educated discuss the finer points.
I am curious about your statement "But you first need to believe that you exist. That is step #1. I think, therefore I am."
If the world is subjective, and no occurence can exist without an observer, one must assume that if any experience is being debated, an observer must therefore exist to define the experience. However, are you taking this a step further and proposing that the observer must both accept the validity of the experience AND the existence of themselves?

Second, I think your proof that Man is God is a bit shakey. I might be able to accept that Science predates Religion, in that science is a methodology (no matter how sophisticated or poor) of gathing and testing information, where as religion is a set of beliefs. It seems reasonable that information would have to first be gathered before belief can occur, regardless of the means.
Also, I can accept that Science is a tool created by mankind, in the same way a screwdriver or rules of grammar are creations of mankind.
Therefore the tools used to gather the information upon which religion is based are tools created by mankind. Stop me if I've mistated your argument up to this point, or left out something vital.
Now your final step of logic: "Man is the one creating the belief of a God. Therefore, man is God." I don't believe this logic holds up to scrutiny. Through our powers of observation and experimentaion, Science if you will, mankind has also created belief in black holes, electricity, blue, muffins and a number of other things. Yes Man is not a black hole, certain snide comments about my cousin not withstanding. Man is not electicity. The simply act of garnering information and creating a belief based on aquired facts does not create ownership or association with an item.

How is Man understood to be God simply because Man found God, or what He thinks is God, by using tools that Man created?

[scienceisreligion]

Interesting debate on quantum physics. I'll stay out of that arena while the educated discuss the finer points.
I am curious about your statement "But you first need to believe that you exist. That is step #1. I think, therefore I am."
If the world is subjective, and no occurence can exist without an observer, one must assume that if any experience is being debated, an observer must therefore exist to define the experience. However, are you taking this a step further and proposing that the observer must both accept the validity of the experience AND the existence of themselves?

Yes. Well, rather, question the validity of the experience and the existence of themselves. They can rather quickly accept both validities with a few basic scientific tests.

Second, I think your proof that Man is God is a bit shakey. I might be able to accept that Science predates Religion, in that science is a methodology (no matter how sophisticated or poor) of gathing and testing information, where as religion is a set of beliefs. It seems reasonable that information would have to first be gathered before belief can occur, regardless of the means.
Also, I can accept that Science is a tool created by mankind, in the same way a screwdriver or rules of grammar are creations of mankind.
Therefore the tools used to gather the information upon which religion is based are tools created by mankind. Stop me if I've mistated your argument up to this point, or left out something vital.

Sounds right so far...

Now your final step of logic: "Man is the one creating the belief of a God. Therefore, man is God." I don't believe this logic holds up to scrutiny. Through our powers of observation and experimentaion, Science if you will, mankind has also created belief in black holes, electricity, blue, muffins and a number of other things. Yes Man is not a black hole, certain snide comments about my cousin not withstanding. Man is not electicity. The simply act of garnering information and creating a belief based on aquired facts does not create ownership or association with an item.

How is Man understood to be God simply because Man found God, or what He thinks is God, by using tools that Man created?

Oh that was your cousin?

Good question. I had to think about it... and it comes down to the last part of what you said, "The simply act of garnering information and creating a belief based on aquired facts."

I would say that the quality of creating is Godly, which includes creating beliefs. In all religions, God is the Creator. And we know with 100% certainty that Man is the one that creates beliefs.

-- edit --

I want to clarify my statement: The quality of "creating beliefs" is Godly, not creating in general.

[scienceisreligion]

You need to believe that anything exists before you can experience anything.

But you first need to believe that you exist. That is step #1. I think, therefore I am.

The participatory anthropic principle would have it the other way around though:

Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.

Which is the correct interpretation? How in principle could we decide?

(edited since original post)

Interesting observation.

I think that the key lies in the last statement of that quote:

"The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives."

Once again, one cannot observe anything if one does not believe they themselves exist with a mind to observe.

"Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer."

As strange as it seems, I think the above statement is faulty in its logic, and it should read something like this, though I personally have no way of testing it out in principle:

[revised Quantum theory] states that any unbelieved physical system remains in a superposed state of no possibility until it interacts with the mind of an observer.

[Openmind]

"Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer."

I think, that their logic is wrong. It should read something like this:

Quantum theory states that any unbelieved physical system remains in a superposed state of no possibility until it interacts with the mind of an observer.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there, having studied a little quantum physics. I just hope that I'm up to it! All possibilities means that the event is undefined - superposed means that all possible events could happen, and that the system is undefined - ie. we don't know for sure what is happening.

If there is "no possibility" then nothing would happen, because there is "no possibiliy", that is 0 chance, that it can occur.

Niels Bohr and Heisenberg (heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? - it's cool) both sort of postulated that a wave function (the all possibilities mentioned) collapses once observed, to a single, obvervable, state. Double slit experiments have proved this - light acts as a wave UNTIL you start putting detectors above the experiment that track the individual photons. At this point, it starts acting like a particle. The superposition of wave-particle duality (all possibilities) has now collapsed to one form after being observed. This is akin to the statement you make:

"interacts with the mind of an observer"

Some have speculated that the creation of the universe applies the quantum physics. That is, no clearly defined beginning occured before it was observed, and the creation of the universe itself was a superposition of possibiliy. Since intelligent humans (or whatever life!) observed it, the universe's wave function was forced to collapse into one reality - ie. the reality of our universe that is perfect for life. There is a bit of food for thought for creationists!!!

It's difficult to imagine, and hard to understand, but I think that is the basic principle.