Can boldness attract God?

[Saint_of_Me]

Alright, so if you try hard, and you succeed, it wasn't because you tried hard, but rather mysticism.

I sure would like it better if some of you guys read my OP a bit closer.

Because if you did you would see that I postulated the source of the Bold Force (I use this for lack of a better term, and so as to refer to the Goethe quote) was not theistic, but rather scientific. Just as yet undetectable, is all. I thought I remember even using a few examples?

Or maybe my memory is shot.......

LOL.

Drew

 

[Keith&Co.]

So..if you can honestly read my OP idea of this "Bold Force" and how I think it might be accessed (note I never said "worshipped")

Well, the definition of religion you offer doesn't say 'worship,' either.

But you've offered a 'mighty' force that will sometimes be available to some people who act boldly, as long as they meet certain conditions. That would be a religion, to me.

I mean, electricity doesn't judge the cause to which it is put to use, so that's physics. Acid doesn't choose whether or not something deserves to be dissolved. That's chemistry.

But your mighty force only helps in positive applications, according to you. That would indicate an agency. So, you have a belief about the nature of the universe, in that it contains a superhuman agency that displays a moral code with respect to helping human affairs.
I don't see why you would reject the very definition you offered as applying to your 'kinda deist' beliefs about the mighty force.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

I try not to get too wrapped around argument by definition, as dystopian is attempting to do above. If Saint_of_Me's god doesn't exactly fit the deist mold it's pretty close. I can conceptually accept the idea of a deistic god who doesn't really care about what goes on in the created universe, but whose energy can be tapped into in some way. There is a huge gulf between a theistic god who actively participates in attempting to control the universe and a deistic one who created but otherwise has absolutely no involvement in the affairs of the universe.

Having said that, the premise that something is "scientific" as Saint_of_Me has suggested entails a lot more than woo, which at this point is all he has. A few isolated anecdotes about folks tuning in to some power is worthless from a scientific viewpoint until a formal effort has been made to conduct some decent investigation under controlled circumstances whereby said results can be evaluated without immediate resort to confirmation bias. Until then you've got woo. And there is certainly plenty of that in the world.

Not trying to harsh your mojo, just trying to put a little perspective on what you're claiming. Find someone who can predictably use the force to levitate a beer out of the cooler and we've got something worth calling "scientific." Until then if you've got something that gives you a warm feeling and emboldens you to venture out and make things happen, by all means enjoy. I remember thinking when I was a kid that when I took a vitamin pill it gave me super powers for awhile, kind of like Underdog. Never was able to fly though.

Thank you--this is the best and most thought-out response yet.

I respect your opinion..and might even agree with it, all things considered.

It certainly (my Bold Force) has no scientific reality or veracity to it. As of yet.

But neither did radiation. Or solar wind. Or TV or radio waves or Space Travel or AI, for 99% of the time man has been around.

I would make one caveat to your post, however. A small one.

You mentioned the beer levitating. LOL..I realize it was w whimsical metaphor but I would ask that you recall I never said I felt the Force could come close to being strong enough to enable telekinesis. It is more of a "frequency enmeshment" between it and our minds. A melding. There is something, I think, in music. And maybe even in quantum physics. Where waves sort of enmesh in sync with each other? Forgive me for not recalling the exact term here. I think maybe it was involved in the "double slit" experiment?

Yeah..something like that going on with the Force and the Universal Mind.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I sure would like it better if some of you guys read my OP a bit closer.

Because if you did you would see that I postulated the source of the Bold Force .. was not theistic, but rather scientific.

The problem with that is that 'righteous' and 'bold' and such terms are so subjective. How would science objectively identify a 'righteous' action? Or 'loving' or 'noble?'

 

[Sarpedon]

But I would also remind you that I did not ask for opinions of what my idea should be defined as. I simply asked you guys your opinion of the idea, and the possibilities.

Ok fine, it's a stupid idea born out of confirmation bias. Just like dozens of other ones I've seen. It isn't just wrong, it's boring. The idea of people doing bold things in a laboratory, trying to detect god is much more interesting than just another retread of this argument. Our archives must contain hundreds of similar arguments.

Oh, and I am not at all impressed by dictionary definitions. If you are reduced to arguing about the meaning of words, you have already lost the argument. Religion, to me, is any form of thought or custom revolving around god or the supernatural. There's no meaningful distinction between praying to god for peace and spreading salt to ward off witches. People who's job is words like to split hairs and come up with fine distinctions, losing sight of the deeper relationship between ideas. In fact, isolating definitions like that is what allows people to pretend that going around a corpse, swinging an censor and praying for the departed is more sensible than doing a rain dance, because they use different words for each.

If you want to define 'religion' in a narrow way for the purpose of an argument, that's fine, I'll use the same definition just for the sake of the argument. It matters not. Words are just noises we grunt at one another in an attempt to communicate. People, especially superstitious monoglots, tend to ascribe magical powers and unchanging definitions to words. It simply isn't true.

 

[Atheos]

I try not to get too wrapped around argument by definition, as dystopian is attempting to do above. If Saint_of_Me's god doesn't exactly fit the deist mold it's pretty close. I can conceptually accept the idea of a deistic god who doesn't really care about what goes on in the created universe, but whose energy can be tapped into in some way. There is a huge gulf between a theistic god who actively participates in attempting to control the universe and a deistic one who created but otherwise has absolutely no involvement in the affairs of the universe.

Having said that, the premise that something is "scientific" as Saint_of_Me has suggested entails a lot more than woo, which at this point is all he has. A few isolated anecdotes about folks tuning in to some power is worthless from a scientific viewpoint until a formal effort has been made to conduct some decent investigation under controlled circumstances whereby said results can be evaluated without immediate resort to confirmation bias. Until then you've got woo. And there is certainly plenty of that in the world.

Not trying to harsh your mojo, just trying to put a little perspective on what you're claiming. Find someone who can predictably use the force to levitate a beer out of the cooler and we've got something worth calling "scientific." Until then if you've got something that gives you a warm feeling and emboldens you to venture out and make things happen, by all means enjoy. I remember thinking when I was a kid that when I took a vitamin pill it gave me super powers for awhile, kind of like Underdog. Never was able to fly though.

Thank you--this is the best and most thought-out response yet.

I respect your opinion..and might even agree with it, all things considered.

It certainly (my Bold Force) has no scientific reality or veracity to it. As of yet.

But neither did radiation. Or solar wind. Or TV or radio waves or Space Travel or AI, for 99% of the time man has been around.

I would make one caveat to your post, however. A small one.

You mentioned the beer levitating. LOL..I realize it was w whimsical metaphor but I would ask that you recall I never said I felt the Force could come close to being strong enough to enable telekinesis. It is more of a "frequency enmeshment" between it and our minds. A melding. There is something, I think, in music. And maybe even in quantum physics. Where waves sort of enmesh in sync with each other? Forgive me for not recalling the exact term here. I think maybe it was involved in the "double slit" experiment?

Yeah..something like that going on with the Force and the Universal Mind.

You give me far too much credit for being open-minded. I'm as crabby an old skeptic as you'll ever encounter.

However, I beg to differ with your comparison with radiation, solar wind, Television, radio, etc. Each of these things are the results of observations and predictable outcomes. There was something that happened with enough regularity that an explanation was demanded, thus radiation was discovered. The discovery of electro-magnetism led to its application in the forms of radio, television and other forms of electronics. Ditto space travel and AI.

For something to be called "scientific" it must begin as a series of observations of phenomena that demand explanation. A person trying and succeeding is not the sort of phenomenon that requires any explanation other than the determination of the individual, provided the objective is something within the known parameters of human experience. It is possible for an individual to row his way across an ocean. It is not possible for an individual to levitate and float mid-air unassisted by machinery across the ocean. If someone were to levitate and float across even short distances in this manner it would then become a matter of scientific investigation to observe, develop hypotheses, test them and come up with theories that can possibly explain the phenomenon.

That's why I used the beer analogy. It's whimsical for sure, but the point is that nothing supported only by anecdotal tales reeking of confirmation bias is worthy of the term "scientific." Produce a replicable phenomenon that is not easily explained by the mundane and known principles by which the world works and we've got something for science to sink its teeth into. Until then all we have is woo.

 

[Keith&Co.]

However, I beg to differ with your comparison with radiation, solar wind, Television, radio, etc. Each of these things are the results of observations and predictable outcomes. There was something that happened with enough regularity that an explanation was demanded, thus radiation was discovered. The discovery of electro-magnetism led to its application in the forms of radio, television and other forms of electronics. Ditto space travel and AI.

I'd have gone with continental drift.

As i recall, the first one to propose it just proposed it. Not much evidence collected, but it felt right to him, and that puzzle piece of Africa and the Caribbean was very convincing. People discounted his theory. Laughed him off. Quoted the bible to point out that the Earth is built on pillars and does not move. So there.
He died a marginalized scientist.

Someone else picked up the idea, did actual research, found actual evidence, came back and said, Hey, look, this is real. So it's so widely accepted that no one really seems to know just how controversial it once was....

Few people are really going to give a new idea the benefit of the doubt just because other new ideas did not fail.
There's also a wealth of scientific ideas that have been abandoned because they just never bore up to scrutiny.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alright, so if you try hard, and you succeed, it wasn't because you tried hard, but rather mysticism.

I sure would like it better if some of you guys read my OP a bit closer.

I did. And I responded to it. You want to claim there is a boldness ether and you can lock into it if you are right enough or work hard enough. You also go on to say it is scientific... and then later on, that it isn't scientific. Much like you deism that survived only a few posts. Mysticism is what you are exposing on, nothing else.

Carl Jung mentioned at one point the potential for a collective consciousness, but that was a fairy tale which he understood. He was trying to figure out how archetypes could permeate across isolated populations. We understand that better now days. Much like we understand how a boldness ether is ridiculous.

 

[bilby]

One of my favorite quotes if the German statesman, philosopher, and writer Johann Wofgang von Goethe, who once said "Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid."

I like to believe this is true. Since my personal version of God is a Deist one--that of an All Powerful but yet non-biblical one. Definitely not Abrahamic. More of an Impersonal sort of Universal Intelligence--the Knowing Fabric of the Cosmos--which can be "tapped into" in order to gain personal strength and Insight.

I also believe the source of this is scientific.

Why? What evidence is there for this "belief that you like"? An idea that is only supported by somebody's emotional attachment to it is the exact opposite of 'scientific'.

I'm not sure how it works exactly but I feel

Yeah, so NOT scientific at all then.

it might have to do with tuning our minds into the correct "frequency" so as to tap into it. Like a radio or TV signal.

Or it might not. Vague conjecture is not science. Science is a methodology that involves developing a testable hypothesis, and then testing it against observations or experimental results. Your conjecture needs a testable claim just to rise to the level of 'unsupported hypothesis'. There is nothing whatsoever 'scientific' about it.

Thus: when we are seeking to perform bold or righteous or loving or noble acts, the frequency is correct and we can be Emboldened.

Woo! Deep, man. Not scientific, or even close to it, but very much the sort of thing new-age 'wisdom' is made from. You can buy it by the sack from most stables for fertilising your roses, too.

And of course this is not a new idea. It has been bandied about for awhile. In different forms. "Like attracts Like." Or that uber-popular book several years ago, "The Secret."

The idea that the Earth is flat, stationary, and at the centre of creation has also been bandied about for a while. 'The Secret' uses the Law of Attraction to separate gullible people in bookshops from their money. It has no basis in reality, and is a pure and cynical scam.

There is a good chance that Goethe also believed along these lines, as he was raised Lutheran, veered away from that Faith, then became a sort of Pantheist, and finally was thought to have some mystical leanings toward those of an ancient Greek Pagan group.

So...."Be Bold and Mighty Forces Will Come to Your Aid."

What do YOU think of this idea?


Thanks......Drew.

I think it is scientifically indistinguishable from a large volume of the droppings left by a herd of male cattle.

However if you have an hypothesis that can be tested, and some evidence to support it, I am happy to reconsider.

You may need to start with unequivocal definitions of 'Boldness' and 'God'; and then come up with an objective test of the form "The difference between a world in which boldness attracts God, and one in which boldness does not attract God, is X". Then all you need to do is show that X is observably true, have your methods and conclusions scrutinised by independent people with relevant knowledge and/or expertise, and you are done. Yay science!

I am not holding my breath.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Many of you are exhibiting the sort of skeptical and closed-minded thought that the vast majority of folks entertained in regards to things like these on the link. Granted, some of them are the result of continued technological endeavor and research, but some were ALWAYS there. But merely undetectable.

Like the Bold Force.

It is a good thing all men of science and those who strive to learn more of our Universe are not as limited in their imaginations as it seems to me that some of the posters around here are. It would be a far less interesting and learned world.


http://www.newscientist.com/article...lities-conquered-by-science.html#.VUo8LvlViko

 

[Keith&Co.]

Many of you are exhibiting the sort of skeptical and closed-minded thought that the vast majority of folks entertained in regards to things like these on the link.

Asking for evidence, a reason to think that your claim of 'scientific' is accurate, or even basic definitions, is close-mindedness?

Granted, some of them are the result of continued technological endeavor and research, but some were ALWAYS there. But merely undetectable.

Granted, but you could also point to the biological theory of spontaneous generation, that sunlight on meat produced maggots. Or maternal impression, the theory that babies look like daddy because that's what mommy was looking at when she conceived the little one.

SOMETIMES more research, or any research, will come to support a new theory.
Sometimes the research will destroy that theory.
Knowing that history shows both paths are possible, is it any surprise that people of a scientific, empirical bent, are asking how far along your research is?

It is a good thing all men of science and those who strive to learn more of our Universe are not as limited in their imaginations as it seems to me that some of the posters around here are. It would be a far less interesting and learned world.

Sure. Plenty of scientists have an imagination. They even sometimes write fantasy or science fiction stories.
They just don't publish their imaginary constructs for peer review until they've done something to establish that it's not all imaginary.

 

[Atheos]

However, I beg to differ with your comparison with radiation, solar wind, Television, radio, etc. Each of these things are the results of observations and predictable outcomes. There was something that happened with enough regularity that an explanation was demanded, thus radiation was discovered. The discovery of electro-magnetism led to its application in the forms of radio, television and other forms of electronics. Ditto space travel and AI.

I'd have gone with continental drift.

As i recall, the first one to propose it just proposed it. Not much evidence collected, but it felt right to him, and that puzzle piece of Africa and the Caribbean was very convincing. People discounted his theory. Laughed him off. Quoted the bible to point out that the Earth is built on pillars and does not move. So there.
He died a marginalized scientist.

Someone else picked up the idea, did actual research, found actual evidence, came back and said, Hey, look, this is real. So it's so widely accepted that no one really seems to know just how controversial it once was....

Few people are really going to give a new idea the benefit of the doubt just because other new ideas did not fail.
There's also a wealth of scientific ideas that have been abandoned because they just never bore up to scrutiny.

That's an excellent example, Keith, and it plays nicely into the point I was attempting to make. Continental Drift was possibly first proposed by Abraham Ortelius in 1596. His theory was accepted by some and challenged by others. In 1863 James D. Dana published the "Permanence Theory" which suggested that the continents were in fixed positions and the oceans did not change positions with the continents. Analysis of the deep sea beds seemed to confirm this for a time.

But the reason the theory was first proposed was because of the observation of a very real and unquestionable fact: The eastern boundary of the American continents looked like they would fit quite nicely (almost like puzzle pieces) with the western boundary of the European and African continents. The fact that these land masses looked like they had been pulled apart was something that warranted an explanatory theory.

So the theory was purposed, and it was indeed a theory that could be falsified, given the right set of information. If it could be determined that the land masses were still moving away from each other it would certainly add credibility to the theory.

But of course there remains the problem that technology wasn't so advanced at that point to be able to make such a determination. They studied it using the best technology they had at the time (exploring deep sea beds) and decided that the evidence seemed to favor Permanence.

However technology continued to advance and eventually it was determined that this is exactly what had happened after all. The continents had drifted apart.

And that's how science works. To call something "scientific" it absolutely has to be something that can be quantified in some way and whatever theory is applied needs to be formulated in such a manner as can be verified or falsified. The experiments and/or investigative techniques to achieve such verification can come later, but there must be some (even theoretical) method by which the theory can be falsified or it's not scientific.

 

[Atheos]

Many of you are exhibiting the sort of skeptical and closed-minded thought that the vast majority of folks entertained in regards to things like these on the link. Granted, some of them are the result of continued technological endeavor and research, but some were ALWAYS there. But merely undetectable.

Like the Bold Force.

It is a good thing all men of science and those who strive to learn more of our Universe are not as limited in their imaginations as it seems to me that some of the posters around here are. It would be a far less interesting and learned world.


http://www.newscientist.com/article...lities-conquered-by-science.html#.VUo8LvlViko

Dude, everyone is different and it certainly takes all kinds. If you are so bold as to present your theory here in such a challenging environment perhaps your bold force will come to your aid and you will overwhelm us with your persuasive arguments. I can't help feeling like it's the perfect test of your theory.

I can't speak for everyone else here but I've been on this planet for many years now and it has been my privilege to see many technological advancements made during my life. I spent most of my life without a cell phone. Now I can barely survive without one. Ditto the Internet. I'm as eager as anyone to see the next big thing when it comes to fruition.

But I've also seen a lot of woo presented over the years. My wife bought into "The Secret" awhile back and compelled me to put a picture of the Philip Island race track in my office so I could "visualize" going there and racing my motorcycle on that track. I intend to do that one day, as it's part of my bucket list. But if I do, it won't be because that picture is attracting universal force-vibes into my life to make it happen. It'll be because I get off my duff, scrape together some heap big wampum and get my ass to Australia.

New-age woo is so extremely common in the lives of nearly everyone around me that I get jaded. I'm not going to apologize for scoffing at yet another example. I certainly welcome you here with open arms for the debate, as that is something I do enjoy. If you're up to it I will continue to pour the occasional shot of Jameson and loose the dogs of philosophy and science. Mind you though, the science dogs have sharp teeth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Many of you are exhibiting the sort of skeptical and closed-minded thought that the vast majority of folks entertained in regards to things like these on the link. Granted, some of them are the result of continued technological endeavor and research, but some were ALWAYS there. But merely undetectable.

Like the Bold Force.

Yes. Please, put yourself in the company of the greatest minds in Human history. You may need to keep in mind that all those things that were hypothesized and ultimately shown to be true did so through experimentation and documentation. Your "bold force" is grossly arbitrary (never a good sign for a hypothesis) that allegedly affects only certain dispositions in the human mind.

It is a good thing all men of science and those who strive to learn more of our Universe are not as limited in their imaginations as it seems to me that some of the posters around here are.

HAW! I can imagine about anything. Doesn't make it a scientifically viable hypothesis.

It would be a far less interesting and learned world.

You must carry such a heavy burden. The good news is, if you are bold enough, you can continue to believe the bold force is a viable scientific and falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[dystopian]

That's the whole point. You put all kinds of detectors out. When you detect some unexplained signal when bold things are done, that's god.

It doesn't matter that is circular. It's religion after all.

Hmm..I dunno.

Let us take a gander at Mr. Webster's def of "religion".....

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

So..if you can honestly read my OP idea of this "Bold Force" and how I think it might be accessed (note I never said "worshipped") and still claim it is is religion--after reading the above definition--then I feel it would probably be of little use to argue the point with you further. Thus: have it your way if it makes you feel better.

But I would also remind you that I did not ask for opinions of what my idea should be defined as. I simply asked you guys your opinion of the idea, and the possibilities.

I am new here, and I must say that when I joined I was not quite aware that this would be such an zealously atheistic site. I was figuring on a more agnostic flavor, with some new Age stuff or maybe Eastern Thought tossed in. Even a few Christians. Like on another forum I am a member of: debate.org.

I find that sort of mix more fun and more conducive to lively debates.

Mind you, I am an agnostic and certainly nobody's idea of a Christian. But I am also a couple clicks to the left of Sam Harris or Rich Dawkins.

After being here a couple weeks I am beginning to understand why so many people avoid atheist websites because they feel them boring.

I might be spending a bit less time here, and on debate.org.

Nuthin' personal.


Drew.

What the above actually reads like:

"I asked you guys for your opinion, not your opinion."
"You're all zealots because there's not enough of you who are new age hippies or christians."
"You guys are boring because you don't agree with me. Debates are boring unless they're with people who already agree with some of what I'm saying!"
"I'm an agnostic and that's better than what you guys are because at least *I* think that I might one day be a jedi."
"I'm going to say that this isn't personal, even though I want you to all feel bad for being boring."

 

[Sarpedon]

Many of you are exhibiting the sort of skeptical and closed-minded thought that the vast majority of folks entertained in regards to things like these on the link. Granted, some of them are the result of continued technological endeavor and research, but some were ALWAYS there. But merely undetectable.

Not believing every single crazy thing some random person comes up and says to you is not being 'close minded.' So many people have told me so many crazy things, if I believed every one, or even bothered to think about every one in a thourough way, I simply wouldn't have time for anything else.

We have to have a filter. And neither 'does something sound cool' or 'do I want this to be true' are particularly good filters.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So?
What's the verdict?
Was presenting the Mighty Force to a room full of "the sort of skeptical and closed-minded" thinkers that rejected Television not a sufficiently bold act? Or did SoM fail to take advantage of the Mighty Force when it came to his aid?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Turns out the bold force is repelled by the italic force.

 

[braces_for_impact]

As evidenced by many a Darwin award, no.

 

[Kharakov]

As evidenced by many a Darwin award, no.

Ehh, wouldn't it be "yes"?

God has a tendency to harvest rednecks after they say "watch this".