I think that you deserve this reply, and I'm truly sorry that it again took so long. I've just personally had a lot going on, and I was still undecided as to how I should reply. Don't take my comments to be criticism, they are simply my opinion.
Gee wrote:Let me explain the truth that I did not manage to convey to you above. Science does not believe in the existence of God, but they are beginning to understand that there is a "consciousness" that exists, and may exist outside of a man's brain.
With genuine respect, I am not aware that scientists do "understand" that there is such a thing.
Gee wrote: Religion is very aware of this "consciousness", but calls it God, and has attributed a lot of qualities to this "God" for various reasons
As an athiest, it is my view that religion is misguided.
Gee wrote:So, I look for areas where the parties are close to finding an answer and try to inflict some reason.
Science is associated with reason (and it prides itself in the formulation of new theories, the improval of old ones, and the replacement of inadequate ones), whereas religion is more concerned with unsubstantiated claims and dogmatism. If you're really trying to inflict reason, then I'd say you'd be much closer to the scientific side.
Gee wrote:In this case, religion has decided that God is omnipotent, so it was necessary to try to show that "God" knows about rules and laws
Okay, but logically, God cannot be omnipotent. An example of an omnipotence paradox: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it"?
Gee wrote: If that gets accepted, the next step is to question why he would know about rules and law
I assume that you mean that if it is accepted that God must adhere to rules and laws. However, if you are instead talking about omnipotence, I don't think it is logically acceptable.
Gee wrote: Of course, religion would jump up and say, "Because He knows everything.", so we must go slowly
Gee wrote: First, the idea that He abides by laws instead of magic; second, why He would even know about rules and laws; third, maybe because He is under the influence of rules and laws.
With these, are you implying that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient?
Gee wrote: I am not a "flower child" passing out hope and love. I am a philosopher trying to convey truth. In my own experience, I found the existence of an afterlife surprising, and the exposure to it shocking. Not being superstitious or religious, I reviewed this new information in my mind carefully until I realized that the only aspect of it that could not have come from me was the emotion--that was definitely external and powerful. Then I considered tales of other people who had experienced something similar and noted that "emotion" was always a major part of their "evidence", no doubt making it easier for science to discount it, as science can not measure emotion and therefore can not accept the reality of it.
How can you be sure that you were not mistaken and that it was not a delusion? Emotion has a large influence on one's perception of reality.
Gee wrote: Recently I learned that a Susanne Langer has studied consciousness and has come up with a theory regarding "feelings" and "emotion". Now there are three sources, my experience, that I know happened, others of similar experience, and a professional. If you also consider what religion has to say, and wash your considerations with reason, there is simply too much evidence to ignore.
I do recognize that it is possible (although I think unlikely) for evidence to be internal and thus not transferable to others, but I have considered (very patiently) what religion has had to say, and I have been reasonable. Yet I have not discovered compelling evidence, and I am unconvinced.
Gee wrote:I had long thought that philosophy, the pursuit of truth, was a rather selfish endeavor. As it is really about wanting to understand a truth for personal reasons, and not terribly altruistic.
I have been contemplating the notion of altruism for some time, and am unsure as to whether or not it can even exist.
Gee wrote: It was a long time before I realized that once a truth was discovered, it could be shared
Yes, I find that to be a very positive thing :)
Gee wrote: but I found that sharing any truth can be difficult. People do not want to accept new truths and are more comfortable with is what is known.
That can happen, but in many cases people just don't agree upon what the truth actually is.
Gee wrote: Historically, people will more often side with a lie, than truth, if it is more comfortable.
I do agree with your observation.
Gee wrote: I suspect that religion has learned this hard lesson, and this is the reason why, say the Catholic church, is almost unrecognizable from one country to another, as they incorporate the local customs in order to spread their "truth".
I'm not sure that I understand the totality of what you are talking about, could you elaborate?
Thanks for reading, Gee ;)