.

Dear George,

.

No doubt awareness (consciousness) and autonomy (free will) coexist with imagination in the human brain but I see the latter as an completely different and independent cognitive function involved in representation (symbolism), interpretation, creation and construction.

My understanding is that, unlike consciousness, imagination is not concerned with perceived reality. I rather see it as a mechanism which allows the individual mind to free itself from perceived reality and explore the unknown.

At best, imagination can be a source of enlightenment ( a stroke of genius). At worst, it may plunge the individual into an inextricable form of psychosis causing him to lose all contact with reality.

My question to you as an eminent mathematician with a keen interest in scientific research and a solid theological background is do you, personally, see any reason why science should not, eventually, be able to establish whether God really exists or is simply the fruit of the imagination.

I am always very grateful to you for sharing your knowledge with me (here on OLO) on the state of the art of scientific research but as I have come to know you a little and appreciate your intellectual honesty, I value your personal opinion.

I hope I am not being too indiscreet.

.

Dear david f,

>>Is being a scientist compatible with being a Buddhist who doesn't believe in God?<<

Yes, see e.g. Fritjof Capra, but after all also the Dalai Lama, although not a scientist, clearly believes in compatibility (c.f. his “The Universe in a Single Atom”).

>>Is being a scientist compatible with believing in astrolgy?<<

Probably not, unless you can provide a respected (natural) scientist who believes such things.

>>Is being a scientist compatible with being subject to any form of compulsive behaviour?<<
Clearly yes, and not only that. There are scientists who are smokers, who are alcoholics, who cheat on their wives, who are celibates etc. Howver, none of these attributes forms an essential part of a worldview like e.g. belief or unbelief in God does.

>> Scientists are human. I believe no humans are completely rational. <<
No question about that. The point of my article was to explore in what sense, if at all, the rational - as opposed to emotional and moral - part of a particular class of worldviews can or cannot interfere with a contemporary scientist’s professional research.

one under god,
to wonder = to be curious about something

George, yes I was referring to abductive reasoning. There are clear algorithms for induction and deduction. They form the basis of the scientific method. However, abduction requires a cognitive leap: "what if thus is not so?" and the faith to carry the chain of reasoning to conclusion. It is the basis of all the great advances in science and the humanities.

Grounded theory is the closest thing to an abductive algorithm we have arrived at to date, and it is quite good at deriving robust understanding of emergent attributes of complex data, but it doesn't create anything new. It simply iterates until results converge.

True abduction demands that leap of the imagination, which some have referred to above as revelation. That is where God comes in.

the ability*..instinct/will etc
to wonder..c0mes via god..[in my opinion]..o

it is..ne of those base issues easily missed/overlooked/dismissed..etc due to their commonality,..,as highlighted..within the human condition..

animals may or may not wonder..but im going to go with no wonder..
or awe..or the many other UNIQUELY human..gifts gifted from him..said to be most high..yet able to be found with*in..*any living thing..

within the least as much as the most

i feel..if first..you*..[used*generically]..
*you..remove the truth/protector etc

ie [god=good/god=life/god=love logic light..
god=sustaining life its living etc]..THEN..*you have taken the beast from its protecting shepard..and can abuse them at liesure

Dear Banjo,

I am really grateful for your inputs. They are challenging, and make me expand on my article.

I agree with your first three paragraphs, except that I do not see imagination and consciousness as competing. Consciousness is a “state of being” whereas “imagination” is an ability (of consciousness). In my dictionary:

Consciousness is the … state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. (Perhaps higher animals possess a lower level of consciousness: animals are aware of external objects, whereas humans are also aware of the fact they are aware.)

Imagination … is the ability to form new images and sensations that are not perceived through … senses. (Animals don’t have imagination).

Science explores the “hardware” (brain) and this throws some light on the “software” (consciousness) run on it. Emphasis on “some”: a computer technician, who knows my computer, its specifications, could tell me what kind of programs can run on it, but not what is the content of this particular writing of mine. To overcome these limitations science would have to radically change how it sees reality, something I indicated in the last post.

Sometimes I think that wanting to understand the workings of our consciousness (including imagination) on the same level as we understand e.g. the movement of planets is like a doctor wanting to perform a complicated operation on his/her own body. But this is just a personal opinion.

>>any reason why science should not, eventually, be able to establish whether God really exists or is simply the fruit of the imagination.<<

I thought I answered that in my previous post: “if science could ‘provide conclusive evidence’ of God, then God would become a cluster of phenomena investigated by science” (like Russell’ flying teapot or Dawkins’ boeing 747) hence would not be God as e.g. Christians -well at least many, including me - understand Him.

Whether or not the only alternative is “figment of imagination” is something science cannot decide in principle, only the worldview you choose. Science is just the finger. Some see it is pointing to the moon, some don't.

George..im sure
if fall mans emotive mental *qualities could be charted,..
[as per 'macro' evolution postulates..ie gradual progression..via the 'survival' of fit-test/and lol natural*..[thus not..science selection]..

the graphs would reveal
that the macro evolution THEORY is deeply flawed..

[macro evolution as like..into new replicable/viable genus]..

in truth evolution is within the genus limitations
/variation within a specific genome..like seen in darwins /finches/pigeons/dogs

darwin chose evolution of SPECIES[not genus]
evolution theory postulates not just one 'genus evolution,but millions

the numbers dont add up..
new genus evolution never recorded
nor observed nor ACHIEVED.. VIA ANY SCIENCE means...in mans many years

the so called 2% genetic difference between ape/man
yet equals HUNDREDS OF 'mutated'/ favorable fertile 'evolutions'

it dont add up!
natural says NOT science ...NOT progressive/planned or deliberated by trans generational logic but perhaps via transitional logus[god]

what i dislike is all gods *natural words/process
are now owned/claimed by 'science' wolves..just like religion peers before it claimed right OVER god