Majority scientists don't believe in God?

yes, that was my question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was asking you, what do you call it? I didn't get your point. Why does their need to be a name for peer reviewed articles that the mainstream press hasn't shown much interest in?

I don't see what bearing that has on any point you were trying to make.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my post was clear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mold

Why do we assume that consciousness is the result of possessing a single brain?

Moreover, several cephalopods have multiple brains. Each tentacle can act independently from the rest of the body.

Apparently there are more ways to skin a cat when it comes to awareness (consciousness). Bees exhibit a hive mind, where information is transferred through informational dances, which is understood by others in the hive and used in the finding of a particular area, rich in food sources.

 

All scientists have to have a completely Objective mind to oneself, if they are not objective, they are not being true to oneself and have no business being in science. SIMPLES

 

I wish that each and every individual who is afflicted with an obsessive compulsive mental disorder and who make use of it only to augment their religiosity, (and sometimes making them them non-functional human beings and religious bigots in the process) would, in actual fact, not only take their own lives, but do so in a way that does not disrupt the lives of people not similarly afflicted. In many respects, the world would be far better off without them. More's the pity, this seems to happen to certain individuals in EVERY stripe of religious faith. If you are one of these, you should seek help. OCD is only a disease if you actively misdirect it. It can be, and often is, a wonderful feature of our admittedly finite minds. Do us all a favor and apply your OCD to some hobby OTHER than your religion. Or sports, which is basically the same obsession, I couldn't help noticing.

What we really needed instead of another religious abomination like scientology is a religion of the obsessively non-religious. See how that idea doesn't really work either, does it? That's because a working definition of a religion is an obsession. More to the point, the same can be said of science. That's probably why scientologists wanted science to be part of the name for their religion, which is actually neither.

 

Politics.

Accumulating and assimilating small changes is all that human science has ever been able to do. Moreover, things we credit ourselves with 'discovering' or inventing were always there. We just didn't know about them. Nuclear fusion reactors existed since the first star. Did we invent our own minds, photosynthesis, evolution, DNA, sex, heavier than air flight, or even the wheel? Think again.

I would not call such things evidence of "intelligent design", but then again, they all would be difficult for us to improve upon, wouldn't they?

Please do not construe the above statements to be an endorsement of intelligent design. I do not support it at all. If God really made our minds in his own image, he was, well, crazy, to put it mildly, or at least, the opposite of intelligent. This is not intended as a joke, even if it sounds funny enough to be true.

 

If there actually were a God with an intelligent design for us and our universe, science would look for and eventually find it, whereas religion would not only not trouble itself to look, but would not allow any of its followers to look for it either.

 

put your earplugs in.
who said anything about a god?
why does this argument ALWAYS break down into this nonsense?

 

The last frontier of science, will be the human mind, because the scientific method breaks down when it tries to examine the mind. Most science of the mind is called soft science. For example, if I had a dream with very specific details, there is no way for me to prove these details happened scientifically, even though this data is real in terms of a natural generation by my brain. This data series cannot be reproduced in the lab by me or by others. It is real but can't be proven in the spirit of the scientific method. The method breaks down when it deals with consciousness and internal awareness.

The brain has two hemispheres, left and right. The left side of the brain is more differential and rational. While the right side of the brain is more integral, spatial and intuitive. Like in math, differentiation finds the slope of a curve at a specific point, while integration finds the area under the curve. Each side of the brain processes data in opposite ways.

Science is more based on the left hemisphere. It tries to differentiate nature into its tiny details. While religion is based on the right hemisphere. God, for example, is an integral concept that is all encompassing; area under the entire curve from alpha to omega. Science, which is based on specialization/differentiation, tries to pin God down as a unique slope on a curve. But to analyze God you need to make more conscious use of the right brain, which does not always equate to the left brain scientific method.

The 3-D or spatial memory of the right brain can be understood with the analogy of a ball. We can approximate the ball with a large number of 2-D circular planes, all at different angles, all having a common center where they touch. Each of the circles are rational planes (2-D or cause and effect) with each angle a unique POV, will all discussing a given point/subject. The 2-D left brain is useful because it helps to externalized the 3-D memory of the right brain, by means of a large numbers of rational points of view (circular logic) at various angles, to approximate the 3-D symbol. All human languages, which are processed in the left brain, stem from a 3-D language in this way.

Data processing in 3-D or the right brain, is loosely analogous to flexing and distorting the 3-D ball with a tennis racket. What this does is cause the various 2-D planes, that where once separated but touching at one point, to overlap in odd ways, that may not follow from the cause and effect in any 2-D plane. This may be called random or irrational. However, this will follow logic in 3-D.

Dreams and visions often cause 3-D symbols to flex or distort. These become distributed in 2-D, so they can be differentiated by the left brain. Often cause and effect in dreams appears broken. But like a puzzle once the pieces are brought back together the 3-D is restored. Science tends to remain left brained and sees the pieces as differential things subject to 2-D logic, which does not add up.

 

Why do you persist in promoting this myth?
You have been informed (with links) that this is an incorrect and outdated nonsense.

 

A 2008 Pew Research Survey states "...just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power." Belief in god and belief in literal interpretation of scripture are 2 completely different things.

Atheists represent only 2% of the world's population.

 

I'm a diver here in the PNW and have a lot of experience with octopus (Giant Pacific Octopus). They do have a distributed network to largely deal with touch and the color changes but that's an autonomic system (no thought involved).

They are intelligent for a cellapod. Mold is not however. Bees are on autopilot as well as are most of your other examples. Imparting "intelligence" is like imparting "purpose" which theists also like to do.

 

No, it's because of natural selection.

 

No atheism is a rejection of religious boundaries.

No, atheism is a rejection of naive utopian pipedreams like "after I die I will live forever."

Card players and folks who play the lotto fit that description. And once in a blue moon they actually beat the house.

I think there is good evidence to suggest that nerve cells originated in Cnidaria and ganglia originated in Planaria. If you try listing the brain parts needed to maintain consciousness you will see that it is distributed over several regions. It's the integration of those regions made possible by the extensive network of neurons which makes the human brain feasible, but in a sense it's not exactly monolithic.

This is remarkable. It's an excellent example of the evolution of instinctual behavior at the group level in order to fill the niche, with adaptions selected to solve some very complex problems. And it underscores the degree of complexity of tiny insect brains.

Navigation is hard enough. But here it is joined with a complex communication scheme, carried out by motor control in the form of the waggle dance, plus all the afferent paths needed to interpret the message. That and applying it relative to the angle of the Sun.

 

No. That god is a god of your own imagining...as such, it does not exist. Not existing, such a god will never be discovered rationally. The God you think you are arguing for is only Discovered/KNOWN at the foot of the Cross.
Hint: It's a heart problem, not a head problem. Not 'I cannot' but I will not.

 

the thing about polls is how each individual taker interprets the questions.

another thing is, i believe most people believe they are more than what natural laws can account for.
this opens the door for a god when in fact it should open the door for further inquiry.

 

Re Brain and Intelligence,

Thus if it is not monolithic, then it must be a network, divided by specific functions (such as information processing), which ultimately result in a coherent "image" on whic we can base our actions.
But if we accept the notion that sentience is a result of networking, then can we say that the neural systems in our body are extensions of our brain and the entire body is compound brain, with a central processor.

Cephalopods, in addition to a central (very large) brain, have independent processors in each tentacle which can act independently while sending information to the central brain. Clearly a networking function. Here is an example of a network, which even allows for independent action by some of its parts.

Hivemind,

I agree, but you qualified your answer by saying "evolution of instinctual behavior". But in fact it is a "processing of information" leading to decision making. Why draw a distinction between advanced instinctual behavior and intelligence?

The slime mold has no brain at all, and mostly exists as a single polyp, but when foraging for food it extends tendrils in all directions, until one tendril finds food and signals the entire organism where it may be found, at which point all other tendrils are withdrawn and follow the shortest path to the food.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-sublime-slime-mold/

If we are going to try and copy the way slime mold provides information throughout its entire organism, can we still say this is not a form of intelligence?

When a tree becomes infected with caterpillars, it begins to produce tanning and distributes this randomly among its leaves. As caterpillars must adjust their body chemistry in order to digest tannin laced leaves and change their body chemistry back for tannin free leaves, it requires the caterpillar to use a lot of energy and reduces its chance to mature and procreate. But how does a tree know it has become infested and puts up defenses, not in the area of infestation, but randomly throughout the entire tree?

But most remarkable, neighboring trees which are not yet infected will begin to produce tanning as well, as a defense to possible infection. How does a neighboring tree "know" its neighbor is infected? By what process is the information shared and results in an "intelligent" response?

I propose that nature has a host of methods of information gathering and sharing and that intelligence, rather than unique to a few species is inherent in most evolved living organisms.

IMO, this process begins with the first bonding of chemicals, through "affinity"

[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

Ok, let us extrapolate this to universal functions. Clearly the universe is an autonomic system (no thought involved).
Then how can one jump to the conclusion that there exists an intelligent, motivated god?

I would argue that natural affinity and repulsion are sufficient purposes for causal action.

No theist has ever been able to answer this question: for what purpose did god create the universe? If god is an autonomic function, it does not have to think, correct? And if it does not think, how could it be motivated into purposeful action?

If god does not think, why do we pray?

George Carlin said it best (warning crude language):

 

George Carlin said he realy realy tried to believe ther is a God... thats somethin ive never tried to do.!!!