(September 4, 2024 at 8:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I'd considered linking you to a group of folks who actually did want to do what you suggested in the op.  Propose a worldview in which spirituality and science are complimentary and coherent - but I see now you wanna tell me about ghosts and meat wizards.

I can only tell you what I already told you.  I tend to think about the life I have, especially in life threatening situations.  It's been going well thusfar...ironically, against some very faithful people who I can only assume did believe in ghosts and meat wizards..for all the good it did them.

If they are coherent, I would love to look at the site. I believe absolutely no spiritual manifestation's have ever appeared in this world!

(September 4, 2024 at 6:48 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote: I don’t think you could find any less biased opinion than AI!

My experience of AI writing is that it has serious biases built into it! I haven't tried every single AI tool -- and there are a lot now -- but it's clear that many of them are programmed to go in a certain direction.

Partly I think this has to do with legal liability. If an AI persuades you to commit a crime, the AI company might be liable. So it makes sense that they would try to avoid responses that provoke that kind of thing. 

I once asked an AI site how I could be more like Dorian Gray. (In case you don't recall, he's the guy in the book who lives a really long time, and in order to avoid boredom searches for more and more extreme experiences, until he finally ends up killing somebody.) The AI gave me a very anodyne list of things that I could do to be healthy and live longer. (Having a magic portrait painted was not among the suggestions.) So it was clear that they had taken the most white-bread possible approach to their response, avoided any possible negativity, and ended up with something absolutely unconnected to Dorian Gray. 

And maybe you heard, recently, about Alexa's political leanings. If asked about why one should vote for Trump it didn't answer, but when asked why one should vote for Kamala it came out with a glowing list of idealistic reasons. Its programming was biased. (They say this has been fixed now.) 

So I think that when looking at AI, we have to keep in mind the likely prejudices of the people who program AI. What do Silicone Valley nerds want us to think? What do they want to avoid, for practical or legal reasons? 

As an answer to your main question: I don't understand why science and spirituality need to be at odds at all. Granted, science has shown that literal interpretations of certain religious myths are untenable, but that doesn't have to bother most types of spirituality. And depending on a person's beliefs about how creation works, that can be perfectly compatible with modern science. Literal Genesis isn't, but that's far from the only account.

Can you give a specific example of someone rejecting spiritual possibilities because of science?

In the footsteps of theistic insanity follows the religion of fallible AI.

My answer to the title is, "we are".

(September 4, 2024 at 6:48 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote: I know from experience, that Atheists are somewhat difficult to present any believer’s view that would get at least some degree of consideration.

If you have a problem talking to every atheist then the problem isn't every atheist.

Quote:Knowing how difficult, almost impossible, it is to find anything that has not been written before, that has an originality to it, even just one thing, but finding five, is impossible! The proposal I made was not to put it out for argument, but to have its rational at least looked at.

Honestly, I'd love to hear something novel from a theist. Anything that hasn't been done to death a million times. Ask the Mods but I doubt they'd have any problem with you posting your original ideas, just leave off the AI peanut gallery. Otherwise just shoot it to me in a PM.

Quote:I don’t think you could find any less biased opinion than AI!

You couldn't be more wrong. AI is a classic case of garbage in, garbage amplified, lots of garbage out! From Amazon's failed misogynist hiring AI to the ongoing bias and discrimination being produced by AI right here and now, AI is a glorious experiment in how to amplify some of the worst tendencies of human nature. For shits and giggles, ask an AI if AIs are biased.

(September 4, 2024 at 9:27 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 4, 2024 at 6:48 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote: I don’t think you could find any less biased opinion than AI!

My experience of AI writing is that it has serious biases built into it! I haven't tried every single AI tool -- and there are a lot now -- but it's clear that many of them are programmed to go in a certain direction.

Partly I think this has to do with legal liability. If an AI persuades you to commit a crime, the AI company might be liable. So it makes sense that they would try to avoid responses that provoke that kind of thing. 

I once asked an AI site how I could be more like Dorian Gray. (In case you don't recall, he's the guy in the book who lives a really long time, and in order to avoid boredom searches for more and more extreme experiences, until he finally ends up killing somebody.) The AI gave me a very anodyne list of things that I could do to be healthy and live longer. (Having a magic portrait painted was not among the suggestions.) So it was clear that they had taken the most white-bread possible approach to their response, avoided any possible negativity, and ended up with something absolutely unconnected to Dorian Gray. 

And maybe you heard, recently, about Alexa's political leanings. If asked about why one should vote for Trump it didn't answer, but when asked why one should vote for Kamala it came out with a glowing list of idealistic reasons. Its programming was biased. (They say this has been fixed now.) 

So I think that when looking at AI, we have to keep in mind the likely prejudices of the people who program AI. What do Silicone Valley nerds want us to think? What do they want to avoid, for practical or legal reasons? 

As an answer to your main question: I don't understand why science and spirituality need to be at odds at all. Granted, science has shown that literal interpretations of certain religious myths are untenable, but that doesn't have to bother most types of spirituality. And depending on a person's beliefs about how creation works, that can be perfectly compatible with modern science. Literal Genesis isn't, but that's far from the only account.

Can you give a specific example of someone rejecting spiritual possibilities because of science?

Nothing specific I can recall. My point in the use of AI is, it does provide sources for a mass amount of history's writings. In the service of combing thru its storage of information, it can prove to be pretty accurate in finding out if something you propose, was already written about by someone in the past. It will even provide referances as to where and when it was before.

Here's what I get when I feed Lewis Carroll to an AI and press some random buttons until hilarity ensued:

"At this moment," proclaimed the Walrus, "it is essential to delve into various topics: shoes, boats, sealing wax, leafy vegetables, royalty, warm sea temperatures, and the potential airborne prowess of pigs."

It's like a corporate lawyer tried his hand at poetry and nobody had the heart to tell him how dreadful it was. Keep it up and we'll have an artificial Vogon.

For my crimes I fully expect to be first against the wall come the robot revolution.

(September 4, 2024 at 6:48 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote: The gist of what I proposed, posits a harmonious and complementary use of the Laws of Science in creation.

Just out of curiosity, which creation narrative are you using? There are two separate accounts in Genesis and a third one in Psalms.

(September 4, 2024 at 9:08 pm)Mortalsfool Wrote:

(September 4, 2024 at 8:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I'd considered linking you to a group of folks who actually did want to do what you suggested in the op.  Propose a worldview in which spirituality and science are complimentary and coherent - but I see now you wanna tell me about ghosts and meat wizards.

I can only tell you what I already told you.  I tend to think about the life I have, especially in life threatening situations.  It's been going well thusfar...ironically, against some very faithful people who I can only assume did believe in ghosts and meat wizards..for all the good it did them.

If they are coherent, I would love to look at the site. I believe absolutely no spiritual manifestation's have ever appeared in this world!

Quote:The beauty, sublimity, and wonder of nature have been justly celebrated in all of the religious traditions of the world, but usually these traditions have focused on beings or powers presumed to lie behind nature, providing nature's ultimate explanation and meaning. In a radical departure, Donald A. Crosby makes an eloquent case for regarding nature itself as the focus of religion, conceived without God, gods, or animating spirits of any kind, and argues that nature is metaphysically ultimate. He explores the concept of nature, the place of humans in nature, the responsibilities of humans to one another and to their natural environments, and offers a religious vision that grants to nature the kind of reverence, awe, love, and devotion formerly reserved for God. Crosby also shares his personal journey from theistic faith to a religion of nature.

https://sunypress.edu/Books/A/A-Religion-of-Nature