the concept of heaven is flawed

[Zazoo]

I'd like to bring one more element for discussion into this. Long ago I read about a growing "cloud" substance far beyond Pluto but like a shimmering pool, barely visible with the strongest of telescopes. There was a theory floating about among scholars that it could contain some answer to the whole "heaven" and "soul" debate, but focus was redirected elsewhere before any tangible scientific data could be collected. Anyone else hear about this or recall it? Any thoughts?

Honestly? It sounds like a bad supermarket tabloid story.
Astronomers discover clouds and objects out in space pretty regularly, but they don't have a habit of making metaphysical claims about what they find -- that tends to be frowned upon by the scientific community :tongue:.
It would be interesting to know who these "scholars" were -- most likely theologians.

I tried to find info about it on Google, so I could see the source, but I couldn't find anything.
~Mike

[Frozyn]

Lazer - I'm not up with the cloning world, but as far as I know, cloning is taking DNA from a host and using it to create an exact copy. Thusfar, those copies, such as Dolly the Sheep, have to be born, just as a natural sheep is. Therefore, at birth, the sheep would gain its "soul" (Whether you believe animals have souls is irrelevant - it's just an example). And, yet again - as far as I know - these copies haven't been viable. They haven't produced offspring, they haven't lived as long as natural animals. Maybe that's natures way of saying cloning won't work. Maybe that's natures way of saying we did a half-assed job. Who knows.

Personally I think we'll get to the point where we can clone everything but the brain. I just don't see us ever being able to copy it. At least not until well after all of us are dead and gone.

[MONOLITH]

Are you sure that wasn't God zapping you for your hedonistic ways? :tongue:

God is a heathen.

He's just fooled you into thinking otherwise.

[MONOLITH]

Mono, you mention a "soul pool". Once again, I have to bring up cloning. When does one receive their "soul"? At birth? At conception?

Sorry. I just can't get that hung up on the details.

I'd like to bring one more element for discussion into this. Long ago I read about a growing "cloud" substance far beyond Pluto but like a shimmering pool, barely visible with the strongest of telescopes. There was a theory floating about among scholars that it could contain some answer to the whole "heaven" and "soul" debate, but focus was redirected elsewhere before any tangible scientific data could be collected. Anyone else hear about this or recall it? Any thoughts?

That ended up being some dirt on the telescope lens. That's why the issue was dropped.

[Frozyn]

One more thing about cloning - how could we ever do adult, full body clones? If matter cannot be created or destroyed, would we just use a supply of every atom possily needed to create a human and arrange those atoms in perfect order?

I wouldn't think that possible....But then again some people didn't think the world was round.

[Lazerblade]

Lazer - I'm not up with the cloning world, but as far as I know, cloning is taking DNA from a host and using it to create an exact copy. Thusfar, those copies, such as Dolly the Sheep, have to be born, just as a natural sheep is. Therefore, at birth, the sheep would gain its "soul" (Whether you believe animals have souls is irrelevant - it's just an example). And, yet again - as far as I know - these copies haven't been viable. They haven't produced offspring, they haven't lived as long as natural animals. Maybe that's natures way of saying cloning won't work. Maybe that's natures way of saying we did a half-assed job. Who knows.

Personally I think we'll get to the point where we can clone everything but the brain. I just don't see us ever being able to copy it. At least not until well after all of us are dead and gone.

Actually many of the cloned organs are grown outside of a "host" body. And although most of the cloned animals have gone through the process of being birthed, there are several that have grown from test tube to incubation chamber, to able to survive without the incubator.

I wasn't sure about that cloud thing. I was young and probably naive at the time.

I think the question being posed here isn't so much "does heaven exist?" but more "how is heaven defined?", and that's a question that will undoubtedly have as many answers as people willing to answer it. To me, heaven is not a place you go to when you die, nor is it a place your soul goes to or comes from, assuming we have souls. Heaven is a state of mind, of pure bliss, when everything right has happened and happiness is the only emotion for which your body is attuned and responding. I've been in heaven a few times, and it didn't always involve sex.

[Frozyn]

Lazer - do you happen to have links for the organs/incubator clones? I'd be really interested to read about the specifics of those experiments.

[Da Fish]

Just because we can't "see" an electron doesn't mean we don't have other ways to show/prove (beyond reasonable doubt) their existence. The fact that we have built an entire field of applied science (electrical/electronic engineering) around the movement of electrons suggests that our "belief" in electrons is quite justified (and those of us who have had the misfortune of touching the leads of a sizable charged capacitor definitely believe :tongue:). The EM equations work, and the most basic EM equations/theory can be verified by anyone with a multimeter, a breadboard, and a rudimentary knowledge of electricity/electronics.

I don't "believe" in electrons just because my science books tell me they exist. I believe in them because my science books contains very specific and detailed information and formulas that I, and anyone, can independently verify through experiment (especially basic EM theory, which only requires about $20 and a trip to radio shack).

What do you think the probability is that an entire, extremely complex, physical model like EM theory would work if it were completely wrong at the most fundamental level (i.e. electrons didn't exist)?

On the flip side: Where is the rigorous scientific theory about other planes of existence. And just WTF is an "other plane of existence"? . Can you show me a scientific model that explains how these planes function? A formula that explains their properties? Can anyone show me anything that I can test so as to independently verify the existence of other planes? The only thing most of the people who support such claims seem to agree on is that they lie outside the ability of science to experimentally prove/disprove. This seems rather convinient. Forgive me for being a skeptic. :tongue:

In science "theory" does not mean a conjecture or guess. It's clearly defined, and it takes a lot of evidence for any hypothesis to graduate to the status of scientific theory. The implication that the half-baked extraplanar "theories" of some new age flake have the same status as scientific theories, such as EM theory, is a little insulting to those of us who chose science as a career path.

Nobody has to accept science as fact (or the closest thing to it we have), but it's the only system that gives us applicable, verifiable answers about our universe. That counts for a lot in my book.

~Mike

FTR: I think I should point out that I'm primarily a scientist, playing devils adovcate due to much preaching to the converted.

The point is that we know so little about science, yet many people like to think we are close to knowing everything. We know the Human genome code, but we have no idea how to apply that knowledge to 100%. The posture of many "established" scientific thinkers today are exactly the same as those of the Catholic church pre-renaissance. Anything outside of the scientific box and BAM shot down in flames due to "lack of evidence". The question I ask is:
Is there no evidence because we havent found a suitable test yet?

[BajaBravo]

he posture of many "established" scientific thinkers today are exactly the same as those of the Catholic church pre-renaissance. Anything outside of the scientific box and BAM shot down in flames due to "lack of evidence".

I think that the fundamental difference is that the nature of science allows a scientist, despite basing his/her life's work on a particular theory, to accept in the light of new evidence, that those theories are wrong. Human frailties may be evident in a specific example, but science itself requires that some scientific theories be proven wrong.

Contrast that with many religions in which The Truth is believed to have been revealed by God. God of course is infallible and thus The Truth as revealed by Him cannot be questioned. When some scientist proclaims that perhaps Man and monkey might have some common ancestor, or the Earth is older than a few thousand years, or that the dinosaurs bones in the ground once belonged to living dinosaurs, True Believers will not accept that if it isn't reconcilable with the revealed Truth.

Just to go off on a little tangent here, I think it's important to acknowledge some important points about religion and the faithful. I agree that many terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but those atrocities were not caused by religion. They are committed by people. Kind of like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" concept.

Religion can provide a powerful tool for a leader to manipulate people into doing what would otherwise be unthinkable, but it's just the tool. If religion wasn't available, that leader could focus on other divisive factors such as race, national identity, social status, gender, age, political strip, etc.

When I wander about in my little town, there are around half a dozen churches within a few miles of each other. None of these churches advocates violence. They don't fight with each other. They all do charitable work. They all offer comfort and fraternity to those who might otherwise feel lost or isolated. Without these organizations, many people in my community would suffer. I don't belong to any of these churches but I certainly respect the role they play.

I know there are members here that have Faith but haven't posted. I think it's important to acknowledge the profound difference between their manifestation of Faith and the murderous/oppressive kind. Apples and Orangutans.

[Zazoo]

FTR: I think I should point out that I'm primarily a scientist, playing devils adovcate due to much preaching to the converted.

The point is that we know so little about science, yet many people like to think we are close to knowing everything. We know the Human genome code, but we have no idea how to apply that knowledge to 100%. The posture of many "established" scientific thinkers today are exactly the same as those of the Catholic church pre-renaissance. Anything outside of the scientific box and BAM shot down in flames due to "lack of evidence". The question I ask is:
Is there no evidence because we havent found a suitable test yet?

There is no suitable test because there is no falsifiable prediction.
There is no falsifiable prediction because there is no model and no hypothesis.
There is no hypothesis and no model because there is no objective, detailed, recorded observation of the phenomenon we wish to explain.

The scientific process starts with observation, proceeds to hypothesis/model, then to prediction, then to experiment, and finally to theory (and back and forth depending on the outcome of a given stage). If you can't apply the scientific method to something you aren't doing science.
So the problem isn't a lack of evidence. Its a lack of any scientific rigor whatsoever. This is why scientists ignore so many new age/religious "theories".

Of course, what you proposed assumes that the phenomena we have been discussing 1.) actually exist and 2.) can be explained by science (if not today, then in the future). If this is the case, then this means they aren't really "paranormal", "metaphyscial", or "supernatural" phenomena, but instead run-of-the-mill natural phenomena (albeit poorly understood natural phenomena).
If this is the case it still doesn't explain why there are no detailed, recorded observations of the phenomena. It seems odd that even our "best" documentation of the paranormal is highly questionable and subjective. Also, why has no one put together a logically and mathematically rigorous models of this phenomena? It seems like even the people who advocate this stuff don't take it seriously enough to do any "real" scientific work.

~Mike