Greater intelligence has never been found or measured, and we cannot communicate with lesser intelligence effectively. Which means: there is a lot we do not know, and in light of that, we should research.
So you are saying that since we have not yet found an intellegence greater than our own we should keep looking. I agree. This is exactly the kind of thing SETI is doing.
You also say that since we cannot dicuss Shakespeare with dolphins we should research how to do this. Again I agree. There are quite a few studies funded by the navy that seek this very porpoise ... eh ... purpose. Well, except for the Shakespeare bit.
So what is the problem? We are doing these things.
Maybe you think SETI should approach the Templeton Foundation with a proposal to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their antenna arrays citing the possibility of hearing god snoring on his throne?
And maybe the Scripps Institute should approach Templeton to fund more dolphin communications research citing the possibility that the dolphins will tell us about their Jesusfish savior and how he was beached on an island as a gift to all fishkind?
I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.
A lot of the problem in this dicussion is the total lack of specificity.
Let's get specific. A real life example.
Are you familiar with SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intellegence)?
The SETI Institute has a number of missions one of which is to build and man radio telescope arrays that search for intellegent signals in space. They scan thousands of frequencies and analyse the data looking for these signals. It is a non-profit science organization and thus seeks science grants (and personal donations) from funding organzations, governmental, corporate and private.
If I'm reading you correctly, you are proposing that SETI also approach churches and other religious organizations for their funding. In order to do that you are suggesting they give their reasons and motivations as "searching for God", yes?
Sounds oxymoronic all around. But lets give some leeway.
Are there some research proposals that would match the "actual science" and "investigate ID" criteria? I keep getting visions of Behe's irreducible complexity or Fairchild's prayer healing where the "actual science" is hostage to predetermined conclusions like all other "religious" research ever devised.
I would like to see some grant proposals.
However, there is the strong possibility that if there are grants to do real actual science research into ID the results will disappointingly show it is all bullshit. I guess that's just a chance we will have to take. Not that the proponents will believe the results just like they don't believe the ... real science results ... already done. But, hey, maybe some kids will learn to do some real science in the process. That's a win-win ... ehh ... lets just say it's a win situation.
Now here is the most important part: the branch under which this building operates would have to be legitimately accepted by scientists and relayed to the public as the wing of science Dedicated to the Search for God and the understanding of Life through real world data. It has to properly say: "We are after answering the question: What is God, does God exist, And how can man communicate more directly." and that its path to do so is through understanding consciousness, advancing greater consciousness via modeling current conscious systems, and by exploring technology and waves of the electromagnetic spectrum from greater space to find greater being, therefore 'God".
Three items in response, tesla.
The research you are talking about is already going on involving millions of scientists of all disciplines all around the world. We are trying to find the keys to consciousness, studying brain and mind, artificial intelligence, psychology, physiology, astrophysics, astrobiology and on and on. Every discipline you mentioned and hundreds more you did not mention we are studying in earnest today.
The only difference between this and what you are asking for is that we are not doing this in the name of looking for some kind of god. We are doing this out of curiosity, to learn, because we can, we want to and to further the knowledge and development of our species.
We are scientists. The scientific method is rather sticky about the details of a research proposal. You have to state in detail your specific hypothesis, in detail the results you might reasonable expect to find, in the most excruciating detail the exact technologies, methods, math and logic you are going to use, and, finally, what impact on the field your results may hold. It furthers nothing to add” … and we may find god.” It is superfluous. There is nothing in any god hypothesis that merits inclusion. Quite the opposite. We are required to ignore all un-evidenced speculations, be they fairies or inter-dimensional spaghetti. Since there is no viable logic or reasoning, let alone any real data, that suggests some god hypothesis might be a consideration we are forced to ignore this speculation.
“Do hsa-mir-181a and hsa-mir-181b function as tumor suppressors in human glioma cells?” Versus “Looking for God in whether hsa-mir-181a and hsa-mir-181b function as tumor suppressors in human glioma cells.”
Finally, do you think that with all those scientists studying all those areas if there is hard objective evidence of some god (the kind of evidence you think may be out there) we will somehow miss it if our research proposal does not state we a specifically looking for it? If such evidence is out there don’t you think we will find it even if we are not looking for it?
I lied, one more item.
Religion’s history with science is one of suppression, ignorance and violence. This has not changed as evidenced by how religion is trying to suppress the science on abortion, stem cells, child immunization, global warming and other subjects they see as against their gods or their holy books or their creeds. So fuck religion. We don’t want their money.
True. And, for the most part curiosity is self-directed. Most research fellows present their grant proposals to those organizations that fund research in the areas of the fellow's interest. Having more sources would be good, but there is nothing in the types of research you are asking that is not already being done, minus the woo factors like
"... other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to see if similar algorithms of conscious type activity are present and potentially interpretable."
Have you looked at The Templeton Foundation? Isn't that the kind of "hub" you are describing?
To your final admission that Fuck the religious, you are blaming people for the indoctrination they have had since a child, and their societies agree with. Whatever experience you have had with religion, lack of education on the matter is the issue, and not the indoctrinated, who have been taught foolishly, and can learn. But if you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance, why would they take you seriously?
Science knows and admits quite readily that we are ignorant of a whole big bunch of stuff. We know for a fact that we don't know far more than we do know. I personally feel that there is more that we will never know then what we will ever know. However, what we do know we know very very well.
The problem is on the religious side. I have yet to meet a religion that does not believe they have some kind of spiritual lock on all TruthTM. They do not realize their own ignorance and, further more, will deny inconvenient reality even when all the facts, evidence and proofs are laid out before them. I don't care if their ignorance stems from acculturation, mental defect or magic idiot hats. Ignorance is ignorance.
There is nothing in most of religion that warrants being taken seriously.
... anyone who will pretend to know whether or not 'God is, or 'is not' is just as ****** and ignorant as the indoctrinated who claim without doubt he is.
Correct, we can not say with absolute certainty. Nor can we say with absolute certainty that Santa Claus or some inter-dimensional bowl of some spaghetti deity exist or not.
What we can say is this:
From the history of religion in our species, from the psychology and neurology and emotion of our species and from the physics we know, the conceptions of any and all gods are most likely the conjures of the minds of men. The likelihood that some kind of supernatural magical entity existing is exceedingly small meaning our confidence level in the non-existence of such spiritual super beings is quite high.
But this isn't the thread for this discussion. This forum is full of threads covering this topic.
... are you a complete fool? Am I?
Frankly, I am not beyond answering both in the affirmative.
I personally feel that there is more that we will never know then what we will ever know.
Now see, that is the same attitude the worst scientists of all time have believed ...
Misunderstanding. My bad.
I never said "stop looking." I believe there is more to this universe than we can ever hope to know, which means our adventure into discovery will never end. That is a good thing.
I'm mostly talking about the kinds of stars, systems, planets, life that are out there. I'm talking about finding what comes after quantum gravity, after finding the constituents of quarks, after we resolve the singularity.
I am human. Hear me roar. I will know so much than before as I spread my searching mind across all time.
As we search and learn if we find some kind of god so be it. Most likely more Spinozan than anything else. But I will not waste my limited resources looking for one. We have so much more to discover.
You want to compare a legitimate proposal of what is not known to a generalized description of what we KNOW we made up.
We KNOW all gods envisioned throughout all of man's time on this planet ARE made up. That is the point, tesla. Given the KNOWN history of humans we KNOW this as certain as we can ... just not absolute, which is unattainable. Based on all the evidence we have we KNOW this as certain as we KNOW there is other life out there in this universe.
At this point in our history, with the knowledge we presently possess, to believe otherwise is illogical dangerous ethnocentric emotional bullshit bordering on dementia.
... does not mean others are not more realistic ...
Realistic? REALISTIC?! You call the insistent emotional need for a fairy tale to be true "realistic"? You think running this world by the myths of ancient tribal priests with thousands upon thousands of conflicting deities is "realistic"? Get a grip, tesla.
You’re blinded by a hatred of religions.
The scales have been lifted from my eyes. Any dispassionate reading of history shows the evil that is religious thought. It is time to face the reality of our knowledge and our place in the cosmos and be done with such self-deluding crap.
No, tesla, I am not bitter. I am concerned our species will never cast off it superstitious thumb sucking and finally grow up.