Scientific Agnostic Theism (SAT) Church/Club

Irony: Many scientists are atheists, yet hard atheism as an ideological position is unscientific.  If you ever meet a scientist who tells you they are an hard line atheist, feel free to let them know that their approach violates the Scientific Method.

I find it curious that atheists usually tout the very thing that they violate by being atheist - A Scientific Approach. Science at its best is supposed to refrain from ultimate conclusions. Each "proven" theory is held tentatively with the possibility that it might be proven incorrect in the future - this is the strength of science. To draw ultimate conclusions on something that cannot be observed is unscientific. If god truly is an infinite being/intelligence, we may not be able to comprehend that with the logical human mind or observe that with science. Many scientists place far too much "faith" in the ability of intellectual inquiry to discover the truth of all reality without the profound realization that the very nature of our reality at its core is comprised of unobservable infinite components, thus unfathomable by science or the rational mind.  Our senses are limited as is our cognition.

No one follows a sage who deals in maybes.  Although I feel that Agnostics have the right approach, you should never hear an agnostic say, "Agnostics are Right!", especially when discussing the unknown. A true agnostic says, "Heck, I can't know".  A scientific agnostic theist, as I call myself, would add, "but I hope there's a point to all of this intricately organized and ordered stuff I'm observing, this finely tuned universe, this growth of complexity that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics".   I do not believe that all I observe in the universe, all I observe in the miracle of life, all that I pursue within my own life of growth and education is an ultimate waste of time and energy. Yes, I said miracle but I use the term loosely.  Science still fails to explain the emergence of life from chemistry, or account for the trillions of years that emergence would theoretically take upon an Earth that is merely, by comparison, 4.5 billion years old. The evidence just as easily points to a higher intelligence at work as it does to the workings of natural causes, which I posit, may even be the very same thing. Ultimately it is my view that intellectually we will never discover the infinite (god), but we can approach it and make some pretty valuable discoveries. (A calculus joke).  

Just by our existence, and observance of the great diversity of living things, it is obvious that life is programmed into the equation of how the universe unfolds.  The universe has gone from a level of simple basic things to a very complex and varied system of order and interactions, and most of all sentience.  It is growing in complexity and diversity.  By this it seems to follow that there is possibility of an intelligence and sentience of greater depth and understanding than what humans - simian lifeforms - apes, are capable of achieving.

Sure, there is a case of absence of evidence of such an intelligence, and this DOES provide evidence of absence (contrary to the famous platitude), but maybe the experiment has been framed incorrectly on the faulty assumptions put forth by religious 'thinkers' (a term we must also use loosely) about who/what god really is.  Maybe god is absent or hidden from logical inquiry.  Could it be possible that god, if existent or extant, is not the god portrayed within the bible (or any other religious writings for that matter)...I think that is why almost all atheist have a problem with god..because the bible portrays him, for one thing, as a vengeful needy jerk who separates his 'chosen' people from all the rest of humanity.

Some people when they consider the Bible see a book containing the infallible word of god, written by his very finger...Others see it coming from God to lesser degrees. I see a book written by men thinking about god.  Men conceptualizing him anthropomorphically, and having him say things to benefit their particular sex, views, and culture (tribe). If you ask someone about the nature of god, and discuss that at any length what they will reveal to you is actually their perception of themselves.  All religious writings are basically this - an imagination of god(s) wrapped in the culture, or persons, describing "him" (a reflection or projection of them). 

To it's credit, the Bible contains some true gems of wisdom, and valid observations on human behavior and situations, but so does Greek mythology.  So it boils down to men thinking about stuff within a god based ideology and writing it down. I'm always for people thinking (and loving) and writing things down, it can produce some beautiful stuff, even when that thinking (or love) is misguided.

So do I not believe in God? No, I don't not believe in God :) (spoken like a true agnostic), but I don't believe in god as presented by any religions that I've looked at.  I see it all as speculations on the unknown and unknowable, that overtime tend to become quite detailed and defined. I do believe that God, if existent, has not very much to do with most of what is portrayed in any religious book (at least any that I have read).  But none of these books I've read are devoid of truth, or basic sociological and moral concepts that appeal to humans.  If you throw enough darts blindfolded, you're certain to hit the target at some point.  If you want to find god you would do better to do it eyes wide open. Study astronomy, biology, or one of the natural sciences. It is my belief that god has hidden himself and his truths inside reality ... the fingerprint of god if you will.  I believe (under my strict definition of the word believe) that we are infinite beings, inside a finite reality, which is itself a projection of the infinite.  

Sometimes I like to speculate that, life, and all that emerges from the cosmos is programmed into the equations, and that god is there in a sort of pantheistic way, waiting to unfold.  We are an expression of the universe, at this stage of sentience, whose best job is to be aware, sentient, and strive to understand and comprehend it in awe and appreciation.   There may be higher stages of greater understanding ahead, and there may be greater stages out there already.  I like to think that it is all unfolding into greater understanding and deepening awe.

The irony here is that you will find god exactly where you think he is not. He is not confined within a church or a book (and this goes for science too).  God is not the god portrayed in the bible, and this is why logical thinking people have no problem dismissing THAT god  (For this article I use the term he. I have no idea if god even possesses a gender.  It is no coincidence that the god professed within patriarchal societies describe "him" is male.

Atheists (and Theists) cast aspersions on Agnostics as fence sitters, or spineless undeciders...I guess it really bothers them that agnostics can handle cognitive dissonance so well, and combat the need for closure, to which they have succumbed.   Hard Atheist have filled in the gap too, based on their need for closure.  They have decided that case and moved on.  As for god, as absent as he/it/that may seem to be, the case is still open...in fact it's a very wide and profound gap. 

As indicated earlier, the core (center/middle) of my ideology is agnosticism.  Scientific Agnostic Theism (SAT). I wish there were a 'church' (club) for those who are knowledgeable in and revere science, who believe (literal definition) in god or a higher state, and cover it all with doubt (skepticism) when approaching the gap.  Were I to start one my first thought would maybe be to call it "The Church of Scientists", but that's too close to that other idiot church that has nothing whatsoever to do with science...hmmm.  Maybe SAT United? Anyway,its overriding ideology would be Scientific Agnostic Theism.  And its goal would be to promote discussion of ideas using whole brain thinking.

If you really want to map your ideology, or your core way of thinking and approaching the world to your brain (and practice a holistic way of employing that brain and thinking) Scientific Agnostic Theism is the ticket.  Science representing the Left Brain, Theism representing the Right, and Agnosticism representing the Center (corpus collosum), which mediates information between the two halves, and which serves to referee any conflicts, and facilitate even communication.  A good shot of doubt in the middle pointed in each directions to allow the two to communicate, yet prevent either party from seducing the other, forcing themselves on them, and producing bastard children (extreme unbalanced thinking).

I have written about the principle of opposition and adversity in another blog.  The structure of our brains reveals the same thing - opposition is at play.   It should be noted that the Left-Right description of the brain is somewhat flawed, since most studies where these traits have been uncovered involve subjects whose corpus collosum has been severed, or brain function has been impaired in one side(region) or the other.  Although there is some localization of function going on with most thinking, scans reveal that much of our cognitive functionality involves activity from both halves.   It is also helpful, and more accurate, when speaking of intuition (emotion)  vs. logic (rational thinking), to divide the brain horizontally rather than laterally, where we have the inner brain (limbic system) which is concerned with instinct(intuition) and mood, and the outer brain (cortex), which is involved with logic and reasoning, as well as higher physical functions.

Put very simply, Scientists are people who value and treasure Thinking and Logic.  Theists (religious people) are people who value and treasure Feeling and Emotion.  Both are vital parts of being human.  Both sides when sought to extremes miss the mark, and are unbalanced.  However, religious thinking tends to be more unbalanced, and more delusional, since many religions contain tenets which promote, or better, dovetail quite easily with the flawed aspects of our reasoning, namely Heuristics, Cognitive biases, and logical fallacies.  All human thinking and reasoning is prone to these hard wired pitfalls.  Where science succeeds is that science strives to overcome this flaw by the scientific method which involves validation, criticism, and peer review by people trying to disprove your position.  Science recognizes that we are flawed and biased and sets methods in place to overcome that.  Religion thinks that we are divine, has a hard time reconciling our flawed brains given to us from a divine or perfect being, and relies on intuition and feelings, and belief to confirm things as real or true.  Be these things as they are, this i the brain we have.  And there are some good things to be salvaged from the religious mind.

This is the true nature of the god-head - the head that god gave you.  As you may notice, it is a holy trinity as well...holy being holistic. We like to spout that there are two sides to every story, when in actuality there are three.  We have a long history of ignoring or marginalizing the third side (the middle), when it is really the most important side of all toward bringing balance and holding accurate ideas.  This SAT approach is actually the cure for my bipolar illness, that I felt I was promised from god within my last full blown manic episode (A very controlled episode, unlike others I've had).  Afterward, I felt I'd been led in my thinking toward the crystallization of this ideology of how to retain the middle.  Was it god, or the eruptions of my own mind?  I don't know.  I do know that when manic it feels very powerful, like communing with and being directed by the universe (god).  Many times I think the 'revelations' we have are just the under currents of our current ken, which bubble up into realizations.

I have the unfortunate ability to inhabit each 'side' of my brain in extremes = bipolar.  I have a theory that it may be due to a weakness in the makeup or structure of my corpus collosum, analogous to a referee who judiciously serves as a mediator of fairness between conflicting sides.  It may also be a sort of brain rash or seizure, where certain aspects of my thinking are inhibited and/or others excited.  When I am too 'left brain' in interpreting my experiences I suffer depression (nihilistic pessimism), and that depression continues up to a point where it hits the wall and bounces rapidly toward the right.  When I am too 'right brain' in my interpretation I suffer delusional, mystical, visions, much like a trip on LSD or DMT (although I've never taken either).  When manic I experience god and the infinite.  

An interesting read that really helped me understand my illness was a book - My Stroke of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor.  She is a neuroscientist who suffered a stroke on the left  side of her brain, severely impairing the ability of it to function.  The result she describes sounded strikingly familiar to my experience when manic.   I think many scientists would benefit from having her experience.  One 'miracle' she experienced was that she was able to 'fully' recover  from the stroke using her knowledge of the brain coupled with much hard work and therapy.  But with this experience so profound, she did not recover into the same person.  She is far more spiritual now, and sensitively tuned to energies such as love, peace, and compassion.

About my bipolar illness, there are some anomalies which don't fit the mold, and which I find curious and maybe worthy of investigation.  First is the onset.  Typically this illness presents itself in the late teens.  Mine manifested itself when I was 34.  Prior to that I had experienced normal highs and lows common to the life experience of most people.  I can recount a few depressive episodes, but each was of the situational type most people experience.   The second anomaly is I have no history drugs or alcohol usage which is typically present within the case history of people with bipolar illness.  The theory for this is they are seeking to self medicate their condition.  This restraint may be due to my religious upbringing (LDS).  However, even after the onset of bipolar illness and mentally leaving my religious beliefs I still have no inclination toward drug or alcohol use.  I think this is why I was able to find a cure to my condition, much like Jill, using my mind.  Escaping conflict rather than dealing with it head on gets a person no progress beyond their issues. (This is the crux of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, CBT).  Besides, if I really want to get high I can do it without drugs, and that high can last for days, if not weeks ;)

It is also important to realize that at this time I was under a lot of stress, at church, at work, and at home.  I think I was subconsciously tuning into the things that my religion had taught me and putting those things to the test in truly seeking god with all my 'heart might mind and strength'.

The subsequent years of depression and demotivation I experienced was due to the diagnosis of being mentally ill and the attendant loss of all the things I treasured, the thinking that gave my life meaning and direction.  I was unwittingly going through Religious Trauma Syndrome, and experiencing the 'Death of one's previous life'.

I know that it is in our nature to interpret things from our current perspective and think that this perspective is accurate in defining the world around us.  We then bump into others who have a view out of their windows that they see as the defining view as well.  We disagree with ideas that don't suit our thinking, and to accept those which do.

So about that church club, I doubt I could get a bunch of differing and opposing views in a room together without heavy discussion, disagreement, and the sharing of endless tangential trivia or irrelevant factoids...Or a lot of, "yeah, but have you considered this?"   So, the first rule of church club would need be, there is no fighting in church club.

The second rule of church club would possibly be that people involved should try to see, at worst, the middle view, which would best facilitate understanding when approaching the opposing views of others, or those ideas dealing with either the unknown or the unknowable.  You can't know, and you may be wrong.   As said earlier on agnosticism, which I think comprises this middle position, can be very uncomfortable and produce much cognitive dissonance driving the need for closure one direction or the other.

Maybe I'll come up with more rules later, but that should suffice for now.

Much like Larry Donner said in Throw Mama From The Train, "Hate makes you impotent, love makes you crazy. Somewhere in the middle you can survive."  

Throw some different words into that related to this post and it works just as well.