Thank you Harish K Thakur for raising this essential question at the interface of scientific knowledge, by definition universal, and personal beliefs and convictions of whatever nature, religious, mystical, ideological, or even politico-economic. For this purpose, one has nothing to add to what Dyson Freeman wrote on the topic: "Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance, they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions" Freeman Dyson (March 15, 2000). Progress In Religion (Speech). Templeton Prize Reading

Interesting summary, Harish.

Lord Budha kept silent about God’s existence when asked by his disciples and talked of ‘Nirvana’ though Ashtaang Marg (Eightfold Path).

I always thought that Nirvana is similar to the heaven of Abrahamic religions. You're free from earthly restrictions, including karma.

The width of thinking and conception (including theistic and atheist views) of God is so vast in the Sanatan Tradition, generally referred to as Hinduism that even today the adherents and sects are many, worshiping according to different belief systems against the Semitic notion god popular in the west. However. People adhering to different belief systems conceive their existence and dignity ( a psychological variant of social recognition, Thymos) through these very systems and leave no stone unturned in repudiating the other systems (maglothymia) and this is why those who believe suffer more than those who don’t believe at all.

Here I would suggest, no difference from religions as practiced in the West. As many explanations as there are faithful.

God has been disproved by the Giant Collider experiments that revealed the energy to be ultimate source of matter. It's up to man to call that source god, evil or nature. Taoism calls Chi the life force, or energy or fire, that animates the universe.

Even this doesn't disprove anything. To someone who wants to believe, it's merely another definition of God. Or, they will argue, and where did the energy come from?

Science is perfectly fine with holes in knowledge. Religion is not. That's one main difference. My real problem with religion is when it, and/or some of its preachers, teach its members to commit atrocities. This may not have been an issue decades ago but it certainly has become an issue today. So I refrain from vague banalities, which attempt to whitewash everything. Don't teach atrocities and all's good. Not everything related to religion is worthy of respect. Let's not lie to ourselves.

Dear Jamel,

Dyson Freeman wrote on the topic: "Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe.

Of course, science and religion are two different windows or say perspectives but the latter one is more rigid vis a vis the former and hence there appears to be a huge distance between the two. there are different compartments of popular belief, different in degree and number. Wiki provides an interesting classification.

A. Strong theist. 100% probability that God exists. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

B. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

C. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#:~:text=In%20philosophical%20terms%2C%20the%20question,God%20include%20%22perfection%22).

Dear ALbert,

I always thought that Nirvana is similar to the heaven of Abrahamic religions. You're free from earthly restrictions, including karma.

THERE APPEARS TO BE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO:

Nirvana is different from the Christian idea of heaven. Nirvana is a state of desirelessness; heaven is a state of having one’s most fundamental desire (for God) fulfilled. Nirvana is a state of ultimate apathy and indifference, heaven of ultimate joy and fulfillment. Paradoxically, Buddhists regard nirvana, the state of desirelessness, as the most desirable state.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-does-nirvana-compare-with-the-christian-understanding-of-heaven

Harish K Thakur Thank you for your comment. You wrote, "Of course, science and religion are two different windows or say perspectives but the latter one is more rigid vis a vis the former and hence there appears to be a huge distance between the two..." This is right. But D. Freeman wrote "Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible....The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions".

As a result, it is IMHO not suitable for us "scientists" to mix Science and Belief, Natural and Supra-natural, Physics and Metaphysics, Chemistry and Alchemy, Rational and Irrational... Moreover, it is destructive for the critical spirit of young people to make amalgams between scientific discourse and non-scientific and/or pseudo-scientific speeches. On the contrary, it is necessary, and it is our duty, to always specify to them the line of demarcation between SCIENCE and other intellectual activities. Read more on this necessary demarcation within this remarkable philosophical thinking:

Chapter Science/Non‐science and Boundary Work

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_Research_Ethics_and_Higher_Education_Deontology_The_Senior_Scholars_Duty

Dear Jamel,

You quote:

D. Freeman wrote "Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible....The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions".

The problem with the current statement is that it takes religion something equal to science while the two are different domains. While the science has the honour to be factual and logical in explaining the things religion is based on faith and belief which sometimes transforms into orthodox value systems. Science is infallible to the extent it has explored and keeps silent to the zones still to be explored and answer.

Religion takes the liberty of having answers to the unexplored and unanswered and herein lies the line of divergence and consequent conflict.

Quoting from your source:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-does-nirvana-compare-with-the-christian-understanding-of-heaven

Nirvana is different from the Christian idea of heaven. Nirvana is a state of desirelessness; heaven is a state of having one’s most fundamental desire (for God) fulfilled. Nirvana is a state of ultimate apathy and indifference, heaven of ultimate joy and fulfillment. Paradoxically, Buddhists regard nirvana, the state of desirelessness, as the most desirable state.

Nirvana also differs from heaven because it suggests one will eternally lose his body and his individual identity, while Christians claim they will keep both of them eternally.

This reminds me of a person who uses, say, a slide rule to do a multiplication, and then writes down the result in 8 significant digits. As if the result is anything close to that precise.

I seem to remember one nun telling us that heaven was when we existed in full adulation of God. Or words to that effect. I just wanted to go home and play with my HO gauge electric train set.

I wouldn't just accept anyone's overly-precise idea of what heaven in Christianity is supposed to be like. Anyone who has such a precise notion is merely creating his own fairytale, like so much else in religion. Honestly, this is the norm for the faithful in probably all religions.

https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-does-the-bible-say-heaven-is-like/

There are actually three heavens described in the Bible.  The first heaven is what is called the firmament or sky that covers the earth.  This is the realm of birds and clouds that surrounds the entire earth.

The second heaven is where the stars, the sun, and the moon reside.  This is the space beyond the earth and it covers the entire universe.  It is as far as the human eye can see with the help of gigantic telescopes such as the Hubble Space Telescope.

The third heaven is unseen and is the residence of God, including Jesus Christ. This is where the dead martyrs and saints are today.  This is the location of the throne of God and where the holy angels surrounding His throne sing day and night, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord our God.

So, nothing nearly as high-resolution as a place where your desires are fulfilled. It sounds much closer to Nirvana to me.

Biblical Descriptions of Heaven

There is a constant chant of holy angels that are continually proclaiming Holy, Holy, Holy over the throne of God.  The Mercy Seat in heaven where God sits is surrounded by magnificent angels full of glory and power that proclaim and bless the holy name of God without ceasing.  Some of these are described as beasts, full of eyes, with six wings and neither rest day or night in their proclaiming the holiness of God (Rev. 4:8-11).

This seems more like what we were taught by that nun, and I must say, it sounds kind of scary and unappealing to me.

Heaven, I have to believe, is whatever every individual thinks would be the ultimate reward for him or herself. So there can't be just one description. If someone were to claim that heaven was where he could watch his sports matches non-stop, that would be pure hell for me!!

Harish K Thakur "The problem with the current statement is that it takes religion something equal to science while the two are different domains. While the science has the honour to be factual and logical in explaining the things religion is based on faith and belief which sometimes transforms into orthodox value systems. Science is infallible to the extent it has explored and keeps silent to the zones still to be explored and answer". This is correct and this is precisely why it is not suitable to mix Science and Belief and to put a demarcation between them

Albert

Thanks for clarification in details.

Nirvana is different from the Christian idea of heaven. Nirvana is a state of desirelessness; heaven is a state of having one’s most fundamental desire (for God) fulfilled. Nirvana is a state of ultimate apathy and indifference, heaven of ultimate joy and fulfillment. Paradoxically, Buddhists regard nirvana, the state of desirelessness, as the most desirable state.

The state of desirelessness and keeping desire fulfilled and alive are two fundamentally opposite conceptions. Is it possible that after losing the material body the desire could be kept alive without body. Is their dooms day concept when all the souls will receive their material body.

Is God playing a role in French riots, a serious question?

Harish K Thakur One of the names of God in Islam (there are 99) is "The Truth". The God of Muslims is believed not to "play roles"

True Jamel,

No god plays role, if it is there,

But alas! the fools who throng behind the blind beliefs

and develop community identity and under the pressure of magalothymia enter into the zones of conflict, out of the identity crisis. It's a very complex situation. Thats why science turns more important than religion.

Harish K Thakur Thank you for this reply which concluded: "Thats why science turns more important than religion". This should be the rule for society and the scientific community in particular. For the latter, deontology imposes that religion and personal beliefs, even political ones, have no "raison d'être" in academic and scientific activities, which by their very nature, that of universal knowledge, transcend beliefs. On a personal level, that of the individual, religion, and beliefs in general, come under the Principle of "Freedom of Conscience", one of the Fundamental Human Rights, inalienable by definition.

Jamel

That simply means that the talk of God is futile, it should be left for private life domain of people. But the problem arises when this domain tries to dominate the public domain of all the people having different private domains.

Harish K Thakur wrote "But the problem arises when this domain tries to dominate the public domain of all the people having different private domains". There is no problem as long as the "Freedom of Conscience" principle is respected. As soon as in one way or another this principle is flouted, Pandora's box is opened.

Jamel,

do you find a difference between the freedom of conscience and freedom of reason, its complex?

Harish K Thakur the Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Reason come both under the concern of "Freedom", a Fundamental Human Right. IMHO, what distinguishes Freedom of Reason from Freedom of Conscience, is what distinguishes "Science" from "Beliefs" whatsoever their nature.

Dear people,

In Humanity societies initially there was not idea about supernatural. It appeared as a result of attempts to explain and predict events of life and reality. The people tried to find what reasons are behind light, rain, thunder, weather change, why appear grass, rivers and animals, humans themselves.

The first temples appear as the universities of past. Gods presence is result of their research. They thought that every fact should have a cause even invisible and transcendental one. And ancient people had all facts explained because of temples teaching.

We have science as a direct descendant of these temple intellectual activities. Please note that many Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek temples achievements like astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, is the base of today science. The science is based today frequently on authorities opinions, that resembles pure belief in religion. As an example, Standard Theory in physics proclaims presence of absolutely empty space and point-like particles, but it is never proved as a fact. It is Einstein's opinion accepted by physicists no discussion. So science is not principally different from religion. Plenty of schools, plenty opinions.

Thinking?

Dear Golubev,

Yes I approve with your argument and logical explanation.

It is quite close the Darwinian theory of evolution. The evolution of society, tribe, religion and state are the consequence of this human relationship evolution.

Those who excelled in mind and intelligence started understanding the systems of nature, weather, rain, summer and started predicting the things. The others found the prediction valid and idolised such people that gave birth to the tribal gods and lords. This further led to the invention of God, which is just the byproduct of human reason.

Religion is just one ideology of dominance. On the name of God it tends to dominate the society, and the so-called religious clergy uses it as a leverage against the orthodox. The rebel who reason against have to face beheading, stoning and dangers of life all through. Alas! we are still struggling to move out of this age.

The neo-classical democrats struggle against the conservatives. Its a sad, plight.

I am a Christian and I believe in one God, the Holy Trinity.

The values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1949 are universal that constitute the foundations of a form of universal morality. Anything outside of that comes under the principle of "Freedom of Conscience" (liberté de conscience): a strictly individual or community liberty consecrated moreover by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this respect, we can read in[1] "Keith Ward claims that the birthday of the secular state can be precisely dated to 1789 – not to the great French Revolution of that year, with its notoriously anti-clerical antecedents – but to the political arrangements set in place following the American Revolution. 'In 1789 the American Revolution introduced to the world in a formal way the idea of a secular state. The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, drafted two years later, laid down that there would be “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”[2].

[1] Madeley, J. Unequally Yoked: The Antinomies of Church–State Separation in Europe and the USA. Eur Polit Sci 8, 273–288 (2009).

[2] Ward, K.: Religion and Community, Oxford: Clarendon Press (2000).*

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

I've been wrestling with this also. I like that science is mostly an objective way to make these kinds of inquiries, at least more so than religion which seems to direct us to predetermined conclusions. I think a pathway can be figured out between the two.

Preprint The improbability of atheism: How the consequences of being ...

When Occam's razor operates, only the essentials remain: This is the “Principle of the Best” stated by Leibniz in a beautiful text: “Whence it follows that God, possessing supreme and infinite wisdom, acts in the perfect manner, not only metaphysically, but also morally speaking…”. By applying this principle to knowledge Leibnitz declares “power and knowledge are perfections, and, insofar as they belong to God, they do not have limits”. And (according to me) to deduce that: Knowledge is anything but irrational.

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/14

Jamel,

The values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1949 are universal that constitute the foundations of a form of universal morality. Anything outside of that comes under the principle of "Freedom of Conscience" (liberté de conscience): a strictly individual or community liberty consecrated moreover by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this respect, we can read in..

I firmly believe that the questions of ethical values, human rights and public good are all deeply associated.

However, I find it not so reasonable to seek legitimacy of morality from religion or on the name of God, which still is a question...

Or we have to believe, as you suggested somewhere else that God is goodness nothing else,

but then I t will turn the whole religious structure redundant and the whole priest shops closed.

Harish K Thakur Allow me to comment on your reply "in Italic" (text in parentheses). You wrote, "However, I find it not so reasonable to seek legitimacy of morality from religion or on the name of God, which still is a question..." (Up to you. It is your Freedom to Think and take a position vis-à-vis religions or beliefs (or not for that matter). This Freedom of Conscience also belongs to believers whatever the nature of their beliefs (or not for that matter) or their confessions). You wrote "Or we have to believe, as you suggested somewhere else that God is goodness nothing else, but then I t will turn the whole religious structure redundant and the whole priest shops closed". (These are not yet closed, it is because, for certain human persons, these are not superfluous. The whole point is that these places of worship and practices which fall within the Freedom of Conscience of those who practice them, as well as the beliefs celebrated there, do not interfere with public space and policies; which belong to all regardless of their beliefs (or not for that matter)).

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/15

Jamel writes:

policies,, it is because, for certain human persons, these are not superfluous. The whole point is that these places of worship and practices which fall within the Freedom of Conscience of those who practice them, as well as the beliefs celebrated there, do not interfere with public space and policies; which belong to all regardless of their beliefs (or not for that matter)).

Well to see a truth is to see it from a particular standpoint, it may be a personal belief exercise, it may be impersonal, I mean removal of the bias.

The problem with most of the religions is that they outlay an orbit of freedom, beyond which one's reason if goes, is snubbed like an infidel or an atheist.

Unless religion gives space to free thinking the human freedom shall remain subject to orthodox constructions, this is how I see a religion.

The Indian Sanatan Tradition has six schools, which lay out orbits but don't force the man to follow, it's purely on will.

there are unorthodox schools too, who don't even accept the existence of soul and God, no one issues fatwas on them, it's a Universal Systems that allows the play of free will unless it infringes the will of others, physically and ideationally.

Jamel writes:

policies,, it is because, for certain human persons, these are not superfluous. The whole point is that these places of worship and practices which fall within the Freedom of Conscience of those who practice them, as well as the beliefs celebrated there, do not interfere with public space and policies; which belong to all regardless of their beliefs (or not for that matter)).

Well to see a truth is to see it from a particular standpoint, it may be a personal belief exercise, it may be impersonal, I mean removal of the bias.

The problem with most of the religions is that they outlay an orbit of freedom, beyond which one's reason if goes, is snubbed like an infidel or an atheist.

Unless religion gives space to free thinking the human freedom shall remain subject to orthodox constructions, this is how I see a religion.

The Indian Sanatan Tradition has six schools, which lay out orbits but don't force the man to follow, it's purely on will.

there are unorthodox schools too, who don't even accept the existence of soul and God, no one issues fatwas on them, it's a Universal Systems that allows the play of free will unless it infringes the will of others, physically and ideationally.

Harish K Thakur wrote: "The problem with most of the religions is that they outlay an orbit of freedom, beyond which one's reason if goes, is snubbed like an infidel or an atheist" Sorry this sounds like a kind of trial of intent. The Principle of "Freedom of Conscience" duly applied, guarantees the freedom to believe (in everything or nothing) or not to believe (in everything or nothing), to the extent that, according to the same principle, beliefs are assumed do not interfere with political affairs. Many people, culturally religious, in one or more faiths, have succeeded in inscribing the Principle of “Freedom of Conscience” into the constitution of their countries.

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/15

Jamel,

The principle of "Freedom of Conscience" duly applied, guarantees the freedom to believe (in everything or nothing) or not to believe (in everything or nothing), to the extent that, according to the same principle, beliefs are assumed do not interfere with political affairs.

Its quite the opposite, I think. Freedom of conscience doesn't want to be enslaved by the laws of the bigots, theories of God and the norms of orthodox,

Still people have to follow religion just because of fear of crucification, fatwas, benedictions or exile.

Thats why reason, if primary turns religion secondary, but this is true of very few religions who give freedom to reason and conscience.

Harish K Thakur wrote, "Jamel, "The principle of "Freedom of Conscience" duly applied, guarantees the freedom to believe (in everything or nothing) or not to believe (in everything or nothing), to the extent that, according to the same principle, beliefs are assumed do not interfere with political affairs". Its quite the opposite, I think. Freedom of conscience doesn't want to be enslaved by the laws of the bigots, theories of God and the norms of orthodox" Who said that? What I said, you have reported it above, and it is in line with what Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights says. See:

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, A guide to the implementation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Jim Murdoch, Human rights handbooks, No. 9, 2007 Available on:

https://rm.coe.int/168007ff4f

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (excerpt)

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/16

Dear Jamel,

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (excerpt)

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This is important, freedom of thought is important to the extent it doesn't go against the public order, health or morals.

Shouldn't the laws forbid the religious beliefs, practices and systems which are unscientific and which in one way or the other hinder human health and free thought processes?

Harish K Thakur wrote "Shouldn't the laws forbid the religious beliefs, practices and systems which are unscientific and which in one way or the other hinder human health and free thought processes?" Of course not; laws cannot forbid religious beliefs, and practices because it is simply contrary and in contradiction with one of the fundamental principles of Human Rights which is that of Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and which stipulates in a manner that could not be more explicit:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Jamel,

Of course not; laws cannot forbid religious beliefs, and practices because it is simply contrary and in contradiction with one of the fundamental principles of Human Rights which is that of Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and which stipulates in a manner that could not be more explicit:

I dont approve here Jamel,

all the religious beliefs and practices which are inhuman have to be restricted by laws,

Among Hindus there was practice of Sati (burning women alive after death of husbands), child marriage and so on.

They were legally banned and nothing like that happens now,

similarly, all the religions that carry such practices have to be restricted, the discriminatory sharia laws, women laws of Islam, certain practices of Christians.

The logic here is that religion should be controlled by rational dynamic persons rather then irrational bigots.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.12_declaration%20elimination%20intolerance%20and%20discrimination.pdf

Harish K Thakur, wrote "I dont approve here Jamel," Should we understand that you don't approve fundamental principles of Human Rights which is that of Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and which stipulates in a manner that could not be more explicit in two points that are conceived to go together:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/16

Jamel

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

How can you be so sure that the fundamental principles of Human Rights

confirms the irrational, discriminatory laws of religion and belief systems.

Fundamental principle of freedom of thought ends where it infringes the freedom of another human. Hope you agree, here.

Harish K Thakur wrote "How can you be so sure that the fundamental principles of Human Rights confirms the irrational, discriminatory laws of religion and belief systems. Fundamental principle of freedom of thought ends where it infringes the freedom of another human. Hope you agree, here". This is precisely how point 2 takes its very sense in framing point 1 of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Just read: point 1 & 2 are organically linked they only go together): it is not possible to consider separately one of them without the other

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/16

Jamel,

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The corollary to point one in point two appears sympathetic to the idea of freedom, it has never been significantly transformed into practice.

In the interest of individual freedom women don't receive equal treatment, say for Burqa, it becomes an issue according to the context.

The French laws and the Arab world will have different representations and laws.

Sometimes it is the demand of public security but on the name of individual freedom public security is jeopardized and that's how religion and orthodoxies turn out to be prime hurdles against application of modern, i.e. rational laws.

Harish K Thakur wrote "The French laws and the Arab world will have different representations and laws.." We were speaking of Universal Human Rights. Okay Got it! Thank you

Since the statement of the ontological argument by Descartes, the discussion around the demonstration of the existence of God has not dried up and we can cite the recent book by Girard (2022) [1]. But, beyond this discussion, proving God's existence would be somewhat paradoxical: With the definitive proof of God's existence, there would be no more room for "Beliefs" and therefore for "Religions" and for "Freedom of Conscience". I dare to continue to believe that it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of God, if only for Humanity to continue, each in its own way, to believe in God, or not for that matter.

Girard, L. (2022). L'argument ontologique chez Saint Anselme et chez Hegel (Vol. 60). Brill. Large parts of the book are readable on:

https://books.google.tn/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=2UB0EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=descartes+l%27argument+ontologique&ots=t3lnNk-WEr&sig=rHzrzRowUqrT9D7tS7z5ZDRKJNA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=descartes%20l'argument%20ontologique&f=false

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes/5

"Pascal's Wager purports to give a good reason to believe in God. The basic idea of the Wager, put simply, is that if God exists, then the utility of belief is infinite; while if God does not exist, the loss for both the believer and the unbeliever is but finite. Since the expected utility of belief is greater than nonbelief, one has a good reason to try to bring about theistic belief. The notion of an infinite utility plays a prominent role in the Wager; without that notion the Wager is clearly unsound. Not surprisingly, the notion of an infinite utility has also been the object of philosophical suspicion" From:

Jordan, J. (1994). The st. Petersburg paradox and Pascal's Wager. Philosophia, 23(1-4), 207-222.

Available on:

https://www.academia.edu/download/79799328/bf0237985620220128-10918-1nbon9x.pdf

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/18

On the St. Petersburg paradox. In line with the previous post: "One particularly interesting objection to the Wager's use of the notion of an infinite utility is built upon the St. Petersburg paradox. This paradox was formulated by Nicholas Bernoulli in correspondence with Pierre Montmort in the early 18th century; and was the occasion for the formulation of that famous doctrine of economics, the law of declining marginal value. 3 In broad terms the paradox holds that it is not true that as long as the expected utility of an act A is infinite, reason demands that one do A at any finite cost. From this it's concluded that the notion of an infinite expected utility (and by extension, the notion of an infinite utility) is problematic and best discarded. Given this conclusion, Pascal's famous Wager seems doomed to failure from the start." From:

Jordan, J. (1994). The st. Petersburg paradox and Pascal's Wager. Philosophia, 23(1-4), 207-222.

Available on:

https://www.academia.edu/download/79799328/bf0237985620220128-10918-1nbon9x.pdf

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes/8

Jamel,

Pascal's Wager purports to give a good reason to believe in God.1 The basic idea of the Wager, put simply, is that if God exists, then the utility of belief is infinite; while if God does not exist, the loss for both the believer and the unbeliever is but finite. Since the expected utility of belief is greater than nonbelief, one has a good reason to try to bring about theistic belief.

The idea forwarded is fine, the utility is more in case the belief continues. One can trace the idea of utilitarianism here, the securing of greater happiness though belief, not through material consumerism. Its just like having positive thinking that I don't have sugar, cholesterol, while one doesn't have the medical reports, and the reality could be different.

Can the human fate be left for just indecisive, confused state. This is what religion have been doing throwing forward the possibilities of the unpredictable.

Harish K Thakur "One can trace the idea of utilitarianism here," Yes I agree with that. For my part, I consider Pascal's Wager to be an intellectual exercise in philosophical thinking and pedagogy.

Religion appears to have created more confusion and animosity than clarity. For which it is accountable. While Pascal's Wager offers the utility of theistic belief, it puts the onus on us all, individually, to figure out the available evidence.

Preprint The improbability of atheism: How the consequences of being ...

Kelly,

Thanks for sharing your interesting take.

While absolute certainty eludes us, the theory and experimental evidence including Big Bang, Darwinian evolution, Miller-Urey abiogenesis, the Fermi Paradox, the Drake Equation, NASA and SETI’s search for extra-terrestrial life and the Anthropic Principle altogether suggest a creative deity beyond our comprehension is a more rational and probable explanation than the alternative.

There is a popular adage:

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".

Now it all hinges over the availability of evidence or its absence, which shaall never be there.

While Pascal's Wager offers the utility of theistic belief by telling the man that the sufferings or the quantum of suffering could be reduced and happiness attained by diverting the root causes towards the unknown, the unevidenced existence, the God. Hence, since the suspension of pain in the Favour of nonexistence has also its utility in minimizing the pain and maximizing the happiness, the God is useful and has greater utility and deserves justification for its existence.

The suggestion of creative deity again appears to be a theistic beliefe which presupposes the existence since bib bang or other corpus of scientific theories could not have evolved without it.

However, in the meantime, there is full probability that this belief is also vulnerable to the disbelief in the argument i.e. the whole process of evolution and devolution (destruction) is an imminent circle of change, progress and dismantling leading to the next round of evolution. This appears to be a systemic process, a behavior based on the conduct of the forces of nature which have evolved, again on the basis of a systemic evolution.

The heat causes sea vaporization, leading to rains and bringing down of heat again leading to the same process and causing weather system. There appears to be a system of forces and their behavior and it becomes difficult to posit belief in the evidence of existence of the creative deity.

This disconcerting paper by Sher, Shashwat Vidhu, "Suicide: The Final A.I. Frontier (November 15, 2023), invites us to think if Humans are not becoming Vice-Gods. Abstract. "With the fall of Good-Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence, many researchers have questioned what it means to be a self-governing decision-making machine. More importantly, there are concerns related to A.I.'s ability to understand human sensibilities and align with the human idea of progress. In short, how can we ensure whether a machine is really thinking like a human or not? The paper tries to answer these questions by proposing a new Turing test based on the concept of suicide or self-destruction. The argument is that a design ideology centered around creating a personal purpose in A.I. would eventually give rise to an ability to contemplate suicide. This ability will be a tell-a-tale sign of human-like intelligence".

The author comes to the disconcerting conclusion on which it is appropriate to meditate: "A sufficiently advanced A.I. machine, as per the design paradigm of personal purpose, can always have a choice to create new goals when faced with an insurmountable challenge. However, if it chooses self-termination over survival, it is making a call not very unlike humans, who can have two different outlooks even when facing the same situation. One can either look at it hopelessly or dream of a better future. In all these cases , not committing suicide is not a lack of humanness, but contemplating one is undoubtedly a sign of going through all the motions that come with being human."

Available on: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4629552_code6186283.pdf?abstractid=4629552&mirid=1

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_Suicide_be_Rational_and_Morally_Defensible

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes

Jamel,

"A sufficiently advanced A.I. machine, as per the design paradigm of personal purpose, can always have a choice to create new goals when faced with an insurmountable challenge. However, if it chooses self-termination over survival, it is making a call not very unlike humans, who can have two different outlooks even when facing the same situation. One can either look at it hopelessly or dream of a better future."

I personally feel that machine cant replace human mind since the latter has the properties like reason, capacity, forbearance, future visions and will to take decisions in favour of community. Machines could be suicidal in terms of loss of mechanical or natural resources evaluating scientifically the logistics and communication means.