"According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically...

"According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. "

What do you believe Veeky Forums ?

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715001133
researchgate.net/publication/220923402_Two_Instances_of_Peirce's_Reduction_Thesis
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715001261
pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics
youtube.com/watch?v=AyifuNC0MT8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I believe in atheism.

Honestly, I put so much clout behind the Bible that I might as well not be Atheist.

Don't care

>stars showing in the dark part of a crescent moon
I believe the artist is a scrub.

I noticed this error in the symbol of Islam when I was 8

unironically believe life itself is the higher power

Citation needed.

I've had spiritual experiences, even some that involve the christian God, but I am unfortunately too smart to dismiss the posibility of it just being a product of my imagination that has been fed with Christian imagery and propaganda ever since I was a little kid, and of course my fear that eventually I will die and nothing I do even matters.

So that's what I believe. I believe that there better be a fucking God or else we might aswell just kill ourselves.

Life as in consciousness, or life as in biological systems that reproduce?

I've seen statistics showing the opposite. The "harder" the field, the less likely people are to just accept the religion they were raised in simply because their parents assure them it's true. So, please, citation needed.

In a sense, it doesn't matter. Reality (including the existence or non-existence of deities) isn't subject to democratic vote.
In fact, the _REAL_ trouble begins when personal beliefs trump objective facts when setting public policy

not consciousness, but as a phenomological entity that both possess biological systems to do what they and arises out of what biological systems do. Consciousness, according to my current opinion is just a particular biosemiotic that happens when symbolic memory is involved. Animals are the only lifeforms I can think of with that property.

>a phenomological entity that both possess biological systems to do what they and arises out of what biological systems do

Can you clarify this a bit?

Jesus Christ is Lord!

Your post suffers from base rate fallacy.

It's clear that consciousness exists, and that it can't be explained by physical mechanisms, and that matter is comprised of particles in superposition that end up determining the paths that matter follows, and that we're limited by perception of phenomena, scope, and time, and we will never fully understand everything, and that science is very much a tool that ends up having a "turtles all the way down" limitation... And consciousness exists amid all of this.

Science is an amazing tool to understand the aspects of life that can be understood better. Same with math. But both science and math are subsets of philosophy, and the deepest inquiries of philosophy remain largely untouched by either. Science is a flashlight that illuminates a fraction of an infinite thing, and it's important that we recognize both its immense virtues as well as its limitations.

Agnosticism is fundamentally true. Solipsism is fundamentally true. We can rule some things out, like the literalist interpretations of religious dogmas, but to submit that you know the answer to the mysteries of reality and consciousness, one way or another, is merely arrogance.

I know that's pretentious, but I really am not sure there's any other way to look at it without making drastic assumptions.

I believe in God but not the biblical version. I believe all conscious life are merely pieces and manifestations of the "universal one" that experiences lives and collects information that will merge with "the one" after the experience is complete. No heaven and hell, just constant reincarnations until we complete what we are "required" to fullfil.

Fuck off biosem cuck. Biosemiotics can be an interesting heuristic but is too arbitrary to be a fundamental principle. Too many add ons too clunky. Conscipusness is simply inference and for us when inference is done in a sense of global maximal context. Global contextual control of behaviour therefore.

inference is not sufficient to describe consciousness, understanding requires a ternary relation. In line with pierces categories and his "reduction thesis".
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715001133

researchgate.net/publication/220923402_Two_Instances_of_Peirce's_Reduction_Thesis

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715001261

The symbol of islam is only the moon you nigger

What you mean is the Turkish flag which has the star far away from the crescent.

Explain why rather than expecting me to read dense papers biofag.

I am in no state to do so

>I don't understand consciousness, therefore there is a god

Or you cant because youre talking shit. Lots of evidence on my side in terms of the association of consciousness with functional integration and functional integration as a method of creating statistical dependencies for inference, aswell as the hierarchical nature of the cortex.

Don't hold me to standards you do not keep for yourself, I linked you what I wanted you to read. Like you said the papers are dense, its a dense topic and me floundering to explain it to you off the cuff with the limited amount of effort I have, doesn't do any justice. Furthermore if you want to argue with me without first understanding my perspective and being able to clearly state your contention, I have no interest in reconciling our differences which you have presupposed. ".Biosemiotics can be an interesting heuristic but is too arbitrary to be a fundamental principle. Too many add ons too clunky.", that is not a good line of reasoning, starting by telling what exactly it is about biosemiotics.
I don't understand why you are being so standoffish, it doesn't make me want to talk to you.

>I'm illiterate.

No ones gna read dense papers. Dont speak ur opinion if u wont defend it. Biosemiotics is fundamentally flawed and clunky coz semiotics is not a natural concept its bringing a linguistic tool and embodying it in nature. The idea of the sign is more complicated than alternative ideas. I wd rather have something more organic. The sign can be deconatructed further into simpler more useful ideas.

And how is that standoffish.

Its called criticism you fruity sensitive pansy cuck munching pederast. And its a better line of reasoning tha yours was.

>The "harder" the field

No the highest fedora rates are in STEM fields are in Biology and Astronomy.

Why talk about something u cant explain and i know u cant coz uve used excuses like that in the distant past.

pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Sorry to burst your bible.

i think that this is nonsense and most scientists are functionally agnostic atheists and there’s no scientific evidence of a creator of any kind nor is it possible there could be one.

>the highest is geology
>the science that doesn't even require calc 2

Thanks for proving my point.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics
About 79.2% of the population in the U.S.A is religious.

If 51% of scientists are religious that means that 28.2% of scientists switched from religious viewpoints to irreligious ones.

Images are haram in Islam.

I thought it was 40/60

>If 51% of scientists are religious that means that 28.2% of scientists switched from religious viewpoints to irreligious ones.

And atheists think they're intelligent...

youtube.com/watch?v=AyifuNC0MT8

what a shitshow, ill rgue with you, though the only point of contention you have made clear is that you do not know what you are talking about
>The sign can be deconatructed further into simpler more useful ideas.
it literally cant, I linked you proofs of pierce's reduction thesis for a reason.
researchgate.net/publication/220923402_Two_Instances_of_Peirce's_Reduction_Thesis
To try to show you that if there is a relation of an "inference" on a "signal", it can not be idenitfied(and thus used for cogntion) without a ternary relation, a thrid point identifying what that relation is. Which is why the triadic sign structure, object-representamen-interpertant as used in biosemiotics must be for any infernce to occur. Also why pierces catagories are such usefull tools.
Pierces theory of signs is used in biosemiotics because it encompasses how everything that means anything to anything does so, it is not a lingustic tool, it was devolped to be the most basic account of 'reasoning', that and as it has been elborated on in contemporary semiotics is excatly what it is accomplishing.
yes, FIP autist I remember you well, you still have no idea what semiotic in the sense of the strand that follows from pierces theory of signs even is. For this reason you are stil impossible to have a conversation with.