Nicola Tesla understood some profound things some of his contemporaries didn't, but he didn't understand them near as well as his modern fans think. While he was putting on lightening shows to impress investors the theory behind what he was doing had been developed fifty years earlier. But no one has built a cult around James Clerk Maxwell.
Maxwell's work doesn't need a cult built around it to be preserved as wisdom to be passed on, because we can prove that work was a better approximation of the truth than anything done before. It doesn't need to be believed in to be true. And as we learn even more we'll eventually discard it for a deeper understanding.
And Maxwell wouldn't gather a lightning bolt to smite the apostates that do that. He'd approve.
Much of your post is intriguing and provocative, but please refrain from assuming I have fallen into the demi-godism of Tesla just because he is mentioned. I simply agree with his statement regarding 'the secrets of the Universe.'
It parallels Einstein and many others regarding atomic particles and quantum physics and fits well into my spiritual theories. Tesla's obsession with electricity is beside the point.
As a recovering Catholic, rejecting Deities is simple. Not so easy is to dismiss certain practices of focusing the mind, intention, meditation that often brings peace and healing to people. If one excepts the 'belief' in atoms (Have YOU personally looked through an Electron Microscope?) most of us just take it for granted that they exist without ever having seen them. Humans throughout history have witnessed how the focus of a disciplined mind can manifest extraordinary things.
Imho, this quote from Nikola Tesla, says it best:
If you want to Understand the Secrets of the Universe; think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibration.
You can see the world thru many lenses. The universe is far too complex for us to understand in its entirety so we create simplified models. We've done this since the dawn of time. This is true at every level of human understanding, from food spoiling to volcanoes erupting to the motion of those points of light in the sky to what happens after we die.
Our models get better and better as we learn more, understand more measure better. They are never complete, but we get closer and closer to understanding the true nature of the universe. Eventually we come to understand that ancient ways of seeing the universe and our place in it were mere analogies, useful up to a point but they break down when we try t understand things in finer detail.
There are more than 4 elements, but even these are made of tinier particles yet, and those are made up of further tiny particles. The earth shakes because of the motions of tectonic plates, not the motion of a turtle carrying the earth on its back. There is no angry god sleeping in a volcano and it will erupt (or not) regardless of who we throw in. The sensations we feel are due to electrical impulses transmitted thru nerves, not the motion of chi.
We're just beginning to probe the mysteries of consciousness, and the rules and understandings of the ancients, useful as they might have been, long ago reached their limit to explain what we see now.
And yes, I've used an electron microscope. You can't look "through" one; the images they form aren't made from light we can see but from a few photons at a time striking a detector, which reveals an image when its signals are processed correctly. Even that couldn't resolve anything as small as an individual atom. We have other tools that can, but atoms don't need us to see them or believe in them to exist.
They were understood to exist because of the way matter behaves long before we could actually see them. Seeing them confirmed what we had already theorized about them. And we may still have it wrong, but everything we can see and measure jibes with our understanding of them. If we see things that understanding can't explain we have to alter—deepen—our understanding. We can't say we've proved we understand atoms, only that we haven't been able to disprove what we understand about them. It's a work in progress. Moral reasoning should be too.
We still labor under strictures created by illiterate iron-age tribesmen who created analogies involving gods and their rules to understand the universe and our place in it. As immutable and timeless as they are supposed to be, those rules have evolved as our understanding of our nature and our duties to one another has evolved.
Don't believe me? When was the last time you sold anyone into slavery? Sacrificed a goat to appease an angry god? Eaten shellfish? Suffered a witch to live lately? And how about those gay people? It's all in the book, but even the very devout ignore those parts. OK, there are still abstainers from shellfish and gay people get tossed off the roofs of tall buildings to this day, but for the most part y'all have ditched some of the worst aspects of your religions. Because we know better now.
Nicola Tesla understood some profound things some of his contemporaries didn't, but he didn't understand them near as well as his modern fans think. While he was putting on lightening shows to impress investors the theory behind what he was doing had been developed fifty years earlier. But no one has built a cult around James Clerk Maxwell.
Maxwell's work doesn't need a cult built around it to be preserved as wisdom to be passed on, because we can prove that work was a better approximation of the truth than anything done before. It doesn't need to be believed in to be true. And as we learn even more we'll eventually discard it for a deeper understanding.
And Maxwell wouldn't gather a lightning bolt to smite the apostates that do that. He'd approve.
I agree that if God exists (and to me he does) he's not "sitting on a park bench..." on top of the clouds with a long white beard. Instead, he must be everywhere, in every thing and spec. - And yes, in the form of energy and vibration, and perhaps consciousness. As a wise man said to me, if you want to talk about God, you have to remain silent.
Imho, this quote from Nikola Tesla, says it best:
If you want to Understand the Secrets of the Universe; think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibration.
I'd add quantum fluctuations to that list. It looks like "God" is indeed playing dice with the universe.
Imho, this quote from Nikola Tesla, says it best: If you want to Understand the Secrets of the Universe; think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibration.
As a recovering Catholic, rejecting Deities is simple. Not so easy is to dismiss certain practices of focusing the mind, intention, meditation that often brings peace and healing to people. If one excepts the 'belief' in atoms (Have YOU personally looked through an Electron Microscope?) most of us just take it for granted that they exist without ever having seen them. Humans throughout history have witnessed how the focus of a disciplined mind can manifest extraordinary things.
Imho, this quote from Nikola Tesla, says it best:
If you want to Understand the Secrets of the Universe; think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibration.
An Atheist primarily rejects the existence of a singular Deity and/or belief system, correct?
Agnostic is the refusal to acknowledge anything beyond this reality, right?
An Atheist primarily rejects the existence of a singular Deity and/or belief system, correct?
Agnostic is the refusal to acknowledge anything beyond this reality, right?
Faith would appear to have nothing to do with intelligence.
"The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general."
If we forget the religious side of faith for a bit, we can see that there are plenty of scientists who firmly believe in whatever scientific orthodox takes their fancy and will hold true to it even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Admittedly, these people are bad scientists, but the point is that religious believers are not the only ones out there who have faith in something or other.
On the other hand, there are scientists who are religious, but are pretty clear in their own minds about where the border lies between the two and are quite open to questioning their scientific beliefs and are for that reason, very good scientists.
The most important thing to remember is that we will, by definition, never have complete evidence because our minds are made to make a model the world, so we will always be one step behind, so to speak. To think otherwise would be for me a sign of bad faith or simply human hubris.
Which is where I start to take exception with the more militant atheists who are happy to vilify others for their beliefs but turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room, namely that all of our mental models of the world necessitate a leap of faith.
For me the truly intelligent acknowledge that fact and will walk forward humbly into the dark night, always ready to revise their mental models.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, be it religious, cultural or scientific is a sign of intellectual laziness.
Full disclosure.. despite all appearances to the contrary, I actually am an atheist.
Or could it be that intelligence is perceived as arrogance? Could it be that "God-fearing", religious folk just aren't as smart, experiencing reason and logic as arrogance based primarily on thier own intellectual limitations?
It is shown that intelligence measured in psychometric g (general
intelligence) is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine
whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious
belief is present among nations.
It's possible of course, but meta-analyses can be employed for any desired conclusion or to confirm one's biases or beliefs. There are countless variables and interactions. Anyhow, being dismissive is not the same as being intelligent.
It is shown that intelligence measured in psychometric g (general intelligence) is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present among nations.
Well on at least one occasion, prior to a surgery, the surgeon asked if I would join him in prayer before the surgery. I did.
Some people are just arrogant and argumentative about their beliefs or opinions; it doesn't really have anything to do with their views on things like religion or theism.
Or could it be that intelligence is perceived as arrogance? Could it be that "God-fearing", religious folk just aren't as smart, experiencing reason and logic as arrogance based primarily on thier own intellectual limitations?
It is shown that intelligence measured in psychometric g (general
intelligence) is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine
whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious
belief is present among nations.
Some people are just arrogant and argumentative about their beliefs or opinions; it doesn't really have anything to do with their views on things like religion or theism. Sure, I've met militant, evangelical atheists who want to convert others to their beliefs and are dismissive of those who disagree with them, but I've met religious people with the same behaviors. I've met vegans or vegetarians, or bicyclists with similar traits. Arrogance is a human behavior - perhaps a flaw - but it's not exclusive to one group of people, it's just that it's the arrogant or "loudest" ones who are more easily noticed and seem to represent whichever group they are from.
Some people just like to argue.
