.

Dear David,

.

I wrote:

« Anybody who is an inconsistent believer is a part time believer and a part time believer is not, in my view, a true believer (perhaps an agnostic?). The fact of choosing when to believe and when not to believe disqualifies that person as a genuine believer. Either you believe or you don’t. Just as you either love somebody or you don’t. »

And you replied:

« By the above criterion I don’t love my wife since I have moments of anger at her where I feel anything but love. She seems to have moments when she feels the same about me. Right now I feel that I love her deeply, but I can’t by your criterion since I don’t feel that way all the time. »

.

If love is a question of “feelings”, then, of course, you are right. But that is not how I see it.

Unfortunately, there is no universal definition of the word “love” and yours is just as honourable as mine or anybody else’s. I think you’ll find that mine is compatible with the statement I made above:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14890#256883

I don’t think it is unreasonable to consider that “being a scientist is incompatible with believing in God”. I think it is realistic.

That’s fine if a scientist is capable of turning off God from Monday to Friday and switching him back on during weekends and holidays, because his belief obviously has its limits and he is able to contain it within those limits. It is the demonstration that his belief is compatible with his work because he maintains a strict fire-wall between the two.

I do not consider that person to be a “true believer” because, as you suggest, it does not make sense for a “true believer” to switch God off and on as he pleases. His motivation and object of belief cannot be those of a “true believer”.

Considering science and belief in God as compatible opens the door to all sorts of abuses. We already have a long and painful experience of that.

.

Dear Banjo,

What I mean - admittedly stepping out of my field of competence - is that the question whether our will, i.e. when acting, is free or not-free arises only when INTERPRETING (or trying to understand) biological or psychological findings (experiments and theories), not something that is a priori present in such theories, like e.g. energy, gravitation or mass in physics. Hence also Penrose’s concentration on mind, rather than the freedom or not of our will.

Otherwise I agree with what you wrote about imagination etc and do not see how it contradicts what I wrote, except for my DOUBTS (based on the self-referential paradox) that what natural science is - or will be - able, to say about consciousness (and its functions as investigated by psychologists) is all there is to be said. You and many others do not share these doubts, although Penrose - as indicated in the quote I gave - seems more open to the possibility that these doubts might be substantiated.

>>I don’t think it is unreasonable to consider that “being a scientist is incompatible with believing in God”. I think it is realistic.<<

That implies that Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel whom I mentioned above, as well as e.g., the astronomers and astrophysicists in the Vatican Observatory are either deficient as scientists or as believing Christians, or both. The same for the believing Jew Kurt Goedel (sorry, he was a mathematician not a scientist). You will have many scientists - atheist or not - who will strongly disagree with this classification of scientists for ideological reasons.

Dear david f,

I agree with what you wrote about consistency and inconsistency in formal logical systems (since we a priori accept the rules of formal i.e. mathematical, logic), see e.g. Goedel’s Theorems. However, when dealing with worldviews, the inconsistency you apparently have in mind arises only when one a priori ASSUMES that only that “exists” what can be tackled by natural science. And this a priori assumption is exactly what is not shared by everybody.

An inconsistency would arise only if the theist scientist sought in what is described as divine action “scientific evidence” for God that must be accepted by everybody (like the rules of formal logic). I doubt that there are serious 21st century scientists who think like that.

I agree that one cannot arrive at believing in God by “trying hard”. One can only “try hard” to understand the world - exterior as well as interior - around us. And I think this is what we both are doing. Sometimes our paths to understanding go parallel, sometimes they intersect and sometimes just go skew.

>>I don’t think free will is a matter that can be determined by a scientific process.<<

This exactly what I was trying to say.

I am really sorry for having brough in Hitler (of course, I agree with all that you wrote about him). So let me rephrase what I wanted to say:

The more one assigns insanity to a criminal X, the less can he be held responsible for his crimes, and vice versa. Thus without free will, the actions of X - or any criminal, big or small - would be due only to the laws of physics or biology, like an earthquake or the preying of a predator, and one would not be able to condemn and punish X. The assumption that people are free to act is the basis of moral judgement. Without belief in free will our world would be totally different, incomprehensible.

key..reference/text
http://courseinmiracles.com/6-distinction-between-miracles-and-projection/urtext/1-introduction-to-miracles/distinction-between-miracles-and-projection

the..perfect-being..[free-agent]..makes
a universe..that..*contains..free-agents,

We/now..turn-to..the..fundamental/distinction..
Between..Miracles..[free-choice]..
And..Projection..[free-will]

The..stimulus..[s]..MUST precede..the response,..[r]..
*and..must also..(determine)/(influence)..the kind..of response..that is evoked...of..free-choice..leading to..free-act

The..relationship..of Stimulus
and Response..are extremely intimate..with..our will.

(The..behaviorist terminology
is because..this part deals with behavior.;)

Behavior..IS response,..When we..finally accept..the At-one-ment..with..the one..for ourselves,..[of choice].

awakening..from the/dream..and..thus becoming..realized/mater-aether-ized..manifestations..of the wHoly_Spirit,..with..the recognition that..our wills..are as one..[freely..with God’s]..must inevitably follow.

Within..the dream,..however,..
which is..the..realm of perception's..and illusion's,..
the concept of..free-will..becomes extremely..important..and meaningful..for it is..the mechanism..of salvation.

here-fore,..[before/this]....the term..“free-will”..has
no meaning here..unless it is used,..as..A Course in Miracles..does..[in..one place]..,to refer to ..he..“freedom..*of will,”

Stimuli..of all kinds..are identified..thru..perception.
You perceive..the stimulus and..chose..to behave..accordingly...as we chose..to do.

It..follows,..then,..that..:
As ye..perceive
So will..ye behave

However,..in this instance..the term means..something..quite different from the..usual conception of..“free will.” [In Heaven,..our will is free..because..it cannot..*be imprisoned,..[restricted/convected/decieved]..

which is..a statement..that..reflects the Atonement-principle
[that..the separation..from God..never happened...of gods will]

How wonderful.it is..to do..your own will..!

For that is freedom...There is nothing else..that ever should be called..by freedom’s name...Unless you do..your own will..you are not free.

And..would God leave His Son..without..what he has chosen..for himself?

God but..ensured that..you would never lose..your will
when..He gave you..His perfect-Answer...

Hear It now,..that you may be reminded..of His Love
and learn..your will...freely..God would not have..His Son made prisoner..to what he..does not want.

He joins..with you..in willing you be free.
And to oppose Him..is to make a choice..against yourself,..and choose that you..would be bound..by illusion..(T-30.II.2).

In..the holy state..the will is free,[must be seen..-free]..
so that its creative power..is unlimited and..abstracted choice..is meaningless..(T-5.II.6:4)...

[you will..have eternity..to do everything..
not be..limited to which..choice singular..
all free choices..will be granted..[subject only..to thy own..limitations..not gods will..for your freewill/choices.

It is not..your will..to be imprisoned..because your..will is borne-free.[freeborn]. That is why..the ego..of self..is the denial of free will...It is never God..Who coerces you,..because He shares..His Will with you...to do your will.

His Voice..teaches only in accordance..with His Will,4 your will
but..that..is not..the Holy Spirit’s/lesson..because that..is what you are...one..[at-one-meant]..[atone/at-one]

The lesson is..that your will..and God’s..
cannot be out/of accord because..they are one(T-8.II.3:2-6).
http://courseinmiracles.com/?option=com_googlesearchcse&n=30&cx=013002577700432726139%3AWMX1059386824&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=freewill&sa=Site+Search&hl=en

Swedenborg..affirmed
human/free-will..as/a..central tenet..of/the..Christian-faith..

Swedenborg/felt that..the..original-divine/order..had been perverted.by human-beings..who...by/using their..free will,.
had progressively..severed/their..*intuitive-internal/connection..to the living-divine.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=swedenburg+free+will&

for/karmic-balance..[atheist/definition]..from
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15624

Moral/evil..is evil..resulting-from..the/actions..of..re-agents..with..free-will;..
natural/evil..is evil..resulting..from the/operation..of/the..laws..of nature..

The-brain..in/of..the-heart:

How..we see..and..hold..the/full range..of..our experiences
*in..our-minds..and/in..our hearts..makes..an..enormous_difference

http://zenhabits.net/how-to-make-your-heart-and-your-mind-work-together/

First..you must know..that..we possess,..as/it were..two souls..and two..personalities:..an animal/soul,..earthly..and sensitive..in nature,..that/is called..the lower/and..a spiritual-soul,..known as the..upper part,..in which..dwells/man's free will.

Secondly.. that all/that..takes place..in the lower/animal part..[fancies,loves hates/fears/feelings,..autonomous reactive/undisciplined impulses..all this..is..*in us,..*but not..of us,..and is..by its nature..involuntary..and..un-deliberated.

All this..can certainly..urge,..though it..cannot compel,..the will..of..that..free..and..unforced consent..which..alone*..constitutes sin.

Faith..is so..innately..a good-thing
that..it..can/be..found..even in those
who...have not..yet learned..to believe.
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/lang.htm

The..main/reason..we suffer..from this illness..of indecision,
is..that..we’ve mistaken..the purpose..of heart..and mind...The heart is..like..a compass,..like..[satellite-navigation]..it’s purpose..is to guide..the direction..our lives..should take...via rev-elation

Our heart..takes..a birds-eye..view..on our..life[from..cloud-mind].. and..says..“this..is..where you’re at..and this..is..the direction you need..to go.”..[that freewill..of mind..is then..free to follow..or ignore.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209563

Our/mind..on the other hand..isn’t made..for making/purpose driven decisions...The nature..of the mind..is that it..conceptualizes,..prioritizes/organizes..and compares..information...inputs

It does/this..as best..it can[with..what it has]..and
says..“here are..the facts,[known/known..here-is..both sides..of the story.”..so-far.

It’s..typical..in our/society..to feel..a conflict
between..what..we want..to do..via(our heart)..and/how..
what..we feel..is practical..in(our mind).

from
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Heart,%20Mind%20and%20Spirit%20%20Mohamed%20Salem.pdf

the soul,..extendinng/projecting..beyond..the body,..has..a higher-vision...has..the means..[way]..to realize..some great..ideas..to express...But..the heart-soul..needs..to get the body..involved-in[enacting]....that vision..and those..ideas...into works

And..it knows..the only way..that can happen..is by..
inspiring..the heart...to in-spire..[in-put..in-stil]..the mind

Problem/is,..the cloud-soul..is just..too big..for that..little..heart to..contain...So..when..the..super-soul..makes a direct-line./.connection..to the heart,..the heart..is overwhelmed...by revelation..it inspires the miracle of mind

Sure,..it*..may catch..fire[passion]
and burn][be inspired]..run-wild..for/a while...But then..it's all over..and forgotten...yet..its fruits remain

That's..where/the mind..fits in.
The mind..has to reach-up..to the cloud-soul..and catch..some of its higher vision.[revelation]....Then..it chews..on that vision..until it becomes..real enough..that/the..heart,..as well,..as brain..can relate..to it.

That's..the point..we call Da'at.
Roughly translated..as.."realization".
http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/292391/jewish/Mind-Over-Heart.htm

After/extensive research,Armour(1994)..introduced
the concept/of..functional ‘heart brain’...His work..revealed that the heart..has a complex/intrinsic-nervous system..that is sufficiently sophisticated..to qualify as..a ‘little brain’..in its own right.

The heart’s/brain..is an intricate network..of several types of neurons,/neurotransmitters,/proteins..and support cells..similar to those found..in the brain/proper.

Its elaborate/circuitry..enables it
to act/independently of..the cranial brain..to learn,..recollect/remember,and even..feel..and sense.[and regulates//bloodflow..to other organ-ic/sic*..minds..of beast

The heart’s..nervous-system..contains..[primitive-brain]
around..40,000 neurons,..called..sensory..neurites..(Armour,1991).

Information..from..the heart..including
feeling sensations..is sent to..the brain..through several afferents.

These..afferent nerve pathways..enter the brain..at the area..of the medulla,..and cascade..up specific pathways..dependent..upon input forces..into..the higher centers..of the brain,..where..they may influence/perception,..decision-making..and other/cognitive-processes (Armour, 2004).

individuals..who have..higher trust..
in..their feelings..revealings..and works..can predict...the fruit
outcomes..of future/events..better than..individuals..with lower trust[faith].in..their feelings.

This ..emotional/oracle..effect
was found..across a variety..of prediction..domains..but extensively..applied to..consumerist/self consuming..capitalist..plus other abuses

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6

.

Dear George,

.

I wrote :

«I don’t think it is unreasonable to consider that “being a scientist is incompatible with believing in God”. I think it is realistic. »

And you replied:

« That implies that Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel whom I mentioned above, as well as e.g., the astronomers and astrophysicists in the Vatican Observatory are either deficient as scientists or as believing Christians, or both. »

.

It’s possible to know what people do some of the time. It’s also possible to know, some of the time, what people say they think. But it’s never possible to know what people think.

It’s impossible for me to know what Georges Lemaître, Gregor Mendel, and the astronomers and astrophysicists in the Vatican Observatory think or thought or, a fortiori, believe or believed. All I know is that whatever beliefs they may have or had are or were not necessarily stronger or more affirmative than those of the average person.

You indicate that Georges Lemaître is a Catholic priest and author of the widely accepted Big Bang theory and that Gregor Mendel is a monk and founder of the science of genetics. Who am I to judge their scientific endeavours? That is a matter for the scientific community to decide.

If, and I hope it is the case, the scientific community judged their work to be valid, then they fall into the category of those whom I described earlier as inconsistent believers, those who demonstrated that there was a strict fire-wall between their belief in God and their scientific endeavours. They were capable of switching God off and on at will.

In my humble opinion, they were not “true” or “genuine” believers.

According to Wikipedia: “while a devoted Roman Catholic, he (Lemaître) was against mixing science with religion. As for Mendel, “ He became a monk because it enabled him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself.”

In all probability, the Jesuit scientists in the Vatican Observatory have adopted a similar philosophy to that of Georges Lemaître, as attested by their scientific achievements.

.