If science only concerns itself with making testable hypothesis, then plenty of theories put forth by scientists are not “science.” — Paulm12

I don't think that's true. There are a couple of candidates I can think of - the quantum multiverse comes to mind. The cosmic inflation multiverse might be another, but people are starting to try to find evidence for that in the cosmic microwave background. String theory is another, but people are currently looking for evidence at CERN.

It gets difficult when it comes to flying away though... — Hillary

Or hunting season, I imagine.

Why should science be refutable? — Hillary

One of the things science is is a method for determining truth. One aspect of the scientific method is that explanations identified as possibly true, hypotheses, must be tested. If it can't be refuted, it can't be tested.

I think there’s simply not enough time in life to waste rehashing long-refuted nonsense. — Xtrix

From what I understand, intelligent design isn't considered a scientific theory because it can't be refuted.

Are you saying that Taoism is not based in any APs?

If you are, please elaborate on Taoism’ lack of APs. — ArielAssante

I see the Taoist world view as a metaphysical understanding. As such, it has it's own absolute presuppositions. As I see it, one of the absolute presuppositions of a scientific viewpoint is that there exists an objective reality that continues whether or not we, humans, are involved as observers. In Taoism, that presupposition is replaced by the Tao, which is a featureless unity. It is the act of naming that divides that unity and brings our everyday observable world into existence by creating the multiplicity of our world, the so-called 10,000 things.

one floats through life like the dandelion fluff, without longing or caring, — Hillary

There is a caricature of eastern philosophies that says they promote a fuzzy; unfocussed; don't worry, be happy attitude. I have no problem with what you've written as long as we recognize that wu wei, action without action, takes place with deep attention and awareness.

I've started listening to choral music. There is something about human voices, especially lots of human voices, that is very comforting.

I take desire, whether conscious or unconscious, to be a kind of primal or underlying motivation for all human activity. If we eat, in some sense we have desired to eat. So when Lao Tzu writes "desire" it must not be a reference to all kinds of desire but must be a reference to a certain kind of desire. It's a question of interpretation what sort of desire he refers to. Possibly he deliberately leaves that up to us. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I've been thinking about desire too. Some thoughts:

• I can quibble about desire vs. discontent, but it's exactly that, a quibble. It's the underlying experience that matters. For me, that's true for everything in the Tao Te Ching. The exact words we use don't matter.
• I think part of my resistance comes from the fact that I've used "desire" for a long time and it has taken on a specific connation in relation to the TTC, a mood, a shade, that has become important to me.
• I have an image that comes to mind when I think on the subject of why we do the things we do. I see a spring bubbling up from underground, a place that we can't know directly. When we act in accordance with what is bubbling up from inside us, it's called "wu wei," acting without acting, without desire, without intention, without expectation, spontaneous, from our hearts. I don't call that desire, I usually just call it motivation.
• My dislike for the long passage you quoted comes from the fact I resist explaining away the ambiguity and contradiction in the TTC. Not being exactly sure what is going on is an important part of the experience. I think living with the contradiction of naming what can't be named, desiring not to desire, acting without acting - surrendering to our lack of understanding - is the whole point.

Maybe "desirous discontent" could satisfy both of us?... — ZzzoneiroCosm

Let’s just let this be a point of disagreement for us. There’s no reason we have to agree on what Lau Tzu is trying to say.

I went ahead and made the substitution ("discontent" for "desire"), and now the thing makes a lot more sense to me. Take a look. — ZzzoneiroCosm

What's missing for me with "discontent" is the sense of striving, grasping that I feel with "desire." Discontent is the result of desire.

I'm getting really uncomfortable with this. I feel like I'm imposing my understanding on yours by force.

"Taoism, like Buddhism, distinguishes between desires, deciding to split the one force into two (outer, or material, desires and inner, or immaterial, desires). Outer desires are equivalent to craving in Buddhism; a force for evil to be vanquished through religious methods. Inner desires, however, are our desires to better ourselves and bring ourselves closer to Tao. These desires are necessary, as without them, we would either be craving-driven gluttons or inactive nobodies. With them, we refine ourselves to be better and closer to the state of total immersion and unity which can either be identified with nirvana or Tao. Thus, as we fulfill our inner desires, we get closer to that indescribable completion and farther from our animalistic impulses. As we get closer, our desires lessen, and the balance within us shifts toward fulfillment and away from longing. Only after some time of this shifting can we make a meaningful attempt to let go completely and unite ourselves with our own innermost natures. According to the Tao Te Ching, “he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.” " — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'll say it again - you need to find your own understanding of the Tao Te Ching and not depend on what I say. Speaking of which:

Boy. I really hate this. It's about as far from my understanding of what Lao Tzu was describing as you can get. This guy is trying to turn a profound vision of the deepest human experience into a comfortable new age self-help book. Hate, hate, hate. Sorry.

Yes, I know, this is a very unTaoist response.

The distinction between craving and aspiration seems solid to me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I used this quote from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 13 a couple of pages back:

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

For me, "aspiration" is the same as "hope."

The focus on contentment, understood as the opposite of desire, also rings true to me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

So if we take contentment to be the opposite of desire we may be able to substitute the word "discontentment" where we find the word "desire." — ZzzoneiroCosm

Some excerpts from the Tao Te Ching translated by Ellen Marie Chen:

Verse 33

One who knows contentment is rich;

Verse 35

Hold aloft the Great Image,
The whole world will go to it.
Going to it, they will meet with no harm,
Only safety, peace, and contentment.

Verse 44

Your name and your body, which is dearer?
Your body and material goods, which is more abundant?
Gain and loss, which is illness?
Therefore in excessive love one necessarily goes to great expenses,
In hoarding much one necessarily loses heavily.
Knowing contentment one does not suffer disgrace,
Knowing when to stop one does not become exhausted.
This way one may last long.

Verse 46

Among offenses, none is greater than having what is desirable.
Among calamities, none is greater than not knowing contentment.
Among blames, none is greater than the desire for gain.
Therefore the contentment that comes from knowing contentment
Is a long lasting contentment.

As it reads, I just can't agree. If "desire" is qualified so as not to exclude the utilization of desire to ignite inspiration, I would be more sympathetic. I have too much firsthand experience of the profound energic outcomes of intense desire. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Desire

The meanings of words can be confusing in the Tao Te Ching. Sometimes they are used in ways that seem inconsistent or even contradictory. Even when that is not true, there are often subtle differences between usages in one verse compared to another. Added to that is the fact that different translators make different decisions about what the ancient Chinese words mean in modern English and different interpretations of the overall meaning of concepts and verses. Adding even more to the confusion is the fact that Lao Tzu was writing 2,500 years ago in a culture that was vastly different from ours.

There is a metaphor I use to describe how I handle all that ambiguity and try to come to my own understanding. I sometimes think of the different verses and different translations as snapshots of the true meanings taken from many different angles. You can’t get the idea from a single snapshot. You have to look at them all, then shuffle them and look at them again. Then go away and come back later, reshuffle them, and try again. That way, you can build up an impressionistic understanding of what Lao Tzu was trying to say.

So.. what I’ve done is copy all the verses that use the word “desire” or a derivative word in Ellen Marie Chen’s translation. I chose her translation because I found her usage of the word the most satisfying of those I looked at.

Alternate Verse 1

Non-being, to name the origin of heaven and earth;
Being, to name the mother of ten thousand things.
Therefore, always without desire,
In order to observe the hidden mystery;
Always with desire,
In order to observe the manifestations.

Verse 3

Do not honor the worthy,
So that the people will not contend with one another.
Do not value hard-to-get goods,
So that the people will not turn robbers.
Do not show objects of desire,
So that the people's minds are not disturbed.
Therefore, when the sage rules:
He empties the minds of his people,
Fills their bellies,
Weakens their wills,
And strengthens their bones.
Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge and no-desire,
Such that he who knows dares not act.
Act by no-action,
Then, nothing is not in order.

Verse 19

Eliminate sagacity, discard knowledge,
People will be profited a hundredfold.
Eliminate humanity, discard righteousness,
People will again practice filial piety and parental love.
Abolish artistry, discard profit-seeking,
Robbers and thieves shall disappear.
These three pairs adorn what is deficient.
Therefore, let there be the advice:
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood,
Reduce your sense of self and lessen your desires.

Verse 29

One who desires to take the world and act upon it,
I see that it cannot be done.
The world is a spirit vessel,
Which cannot be acted upon.
One who acts on it fails,
One who holds on to it loses.
Therefore things either move forward or follow behind;
They blow hot or blow cold;
They are strong or weak;
They get on or they get off.
Therefore the sage gets rid of over-doing,
Gets rid of extravagances,
Gets rid of excesses.

Verse 34

The great Tao floods over,
To the left, to the right.
Ten thousand beings live by it,
And it does not reject them.
Work is accomplished, yet it has no name.
It clothes and nourishes ten thousand beings,
But does not lord over them.
Always without desire,
It may be named the small;
Ten thousand beings return to it,
Yet it does not lord over them,
It may be named the great.
Because it never considers itself great,
Therefore it can accomplish its greatness.

Verse 37

Tao everlasting does not act,
And yet nothing is not done.
If kings and barons can abide by it,
The ten thousand things will transform by themselves.
If in transforming desire is aroused,
I shall suppress it by the nameless uncarved wood.
With the nameless uncarved wood,
There shall be no desire.
Without desire there is thus quietude.
The world shall be self-ordered.

Verse 46

When the world practices Tao,
Fast horses are used for their dung.
When the world does not practice Tao,
War horses give birth at the borders.
Among offenses, none is greater than having what is desirable.
Among calamities, none is greater than not knowing contentment.
Among blames, none is greater than the desire for gain.
Therefore the contentment that comes from knowing contentment
Is a long lasting contentment.

Verse 57

Govern a state by the normal;
Conduct warfare as the abnormal;
Take the empire when there is no business.
How do I know such should be the case?
By the following:
In an empire with many prohibitions,
People are often poor;
When people have many sharp weapons,
The state is in great darkness;
When persons abound in ingenuity,
Abnormal objects multiply;
When laws are abundantly promulgated,
There are many thieves and brigands.
Therefore the sage says:
I do not act,
Hence the people transform by themselves;
I love tranquility,
Hence the people are normal by themselves;
I have no business,
Hence the people grow rich by themselves;
I have no desire,
Hence the people are like the uncarved wood by themselves.

Verse 64

What is at equilibrium is easy to maintain;
What has not emerged is easy to plan;
What is fragile is easy to dissolve;
What is minute is easy to disperse.
Act when there is yet nothing to do.
Govern when there is yet no disorder.
A tree whose trunk is of a man's embrace,
Begins from something extremely tiny.
A tower of nine stories high,
Is built from a heap of earth.
A trip of a thousand miles,
Begins right at one's feet.
He who acts fails,
He who holds on to loses.
Therefore the sage does not act so he does not fail,
He does not hold on to, so he does not lose.
The people in launching their projects,
Often fail when these are near completion.
Had they been as careful at the end as at the beginning,
There would have been no failures.
Therefore the sage desires not to desire,
He does not treasure hard-to-get goods;
Learns not to learn,
He recovers the transgressions of many.
In assisting the self-becoming of all beings,
He dares not act.

Verse 66

Rivers and seas can be kings of the hundred valleys,
Because they are good at flowing downwards.
Therefore they can be kings of the hundred valleys.
Thus if you desire to be above the people,
Your words must reach down to them.
If you desire to lead the people,
Your person must be behind them.
Thus the sage is above,
Yet the people do not feel his weight.
He stays in front,
Yet the people do not suffer any harm.
Thus all gladly praise him untiringly.
Because he does not contend with any,
Therefore no one under heaven can contend with him.

Here's the passage from Franny and Zooey. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sounds like whichever character is talking in the quote has studied some Buddhism. I think of "detachment" as a Buddhist concept, although I think it is consistent with Taoism too.

I appreciate your work. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It is a luxury to have someone questioning the things I write. It makes me work harder to understand.

If Tanha only includes these few sorts of desires, no problem, I (mostly) get it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Although I see them as related, the Taoist and Buddhist understandings of desire are not exactly the same. I'll put something together.

As it reads, I just can't agree. If "desire" is qualified so as not to exclude the utilization of desire to ignite inspiration, I would be more sympathetic. I have too much firsthand experience of the profound energic outcomes of intense desire. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Any more insight into the issue of desire is welcome. I'm enjoying the exchange. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Keeping in mind, of course, that you are disagreeing with Lao Tzu and not just me. Let me see if I can put together a post about desire. It may take me a while.

Deleted

Metaphysics Tools are tools of reason of three kinds: principles, logic and knowledge. No existent can create itself, from nothing comes nothing, the principle of non-contradiction (is or is not) and every existent has a beginning except for the first existent are such tools. Tools of logic are the syllogism, the if then and either or construction. As for knowledge, it can be either a priori or empirical. With these tools and imagination, one should be able to arrive at the first existent, and consequently, the origin of the universe. — val p miranda

There have been quite a few threads on the forum recently that use the approach you describe to try to prove the existence of God. I'm not sure if, when you say "first existent," you mean God, but I think the logical process is probably the same. I have never found this kind of approach very convincing. Going back in any sequence, there comes a point where, if you don't want to go on forever, you get to "just because."

I think you understood that I wanted to remove philosophy and do sciences only, which is absolutely not what I meant. — Skalidris

If you look at the rest of my post, you should be able to see that I didn't misunderstand you.

The connection to desire is most puzzling to me. As I said above: I take desire to be at the heart of inspiration and inspiration to be at the heart of a life fully lived. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Are you familiar with the four Noble Truths of Buddhism? Forgive my summary:

• All life is suffering
• Suffering is caused by desire, craving, attachment
• Get rid of desire, you get rid of suffering.
• Follow our patented 8 step path for fast, fast relief.

Taoism is not Buddhism, but I've always thought their ideas of suffering are similar.

Thank you.

So when presenting someone not familiar with the hard problem, or even has really grasped it (and is not of a mystical bent), they will quickly answer: "Because evolution has created it!" when asked, "Why is it we have sensations, thoughts, feelings associated with physical processes?".

How does one actually get the point across why this is not an acceptable answer as far as the hard problem is concerned? — schopenhauer1

Maybe tell them about how ancient reptiles' jaw bones evolved into the inner ear bones in modern mammals. The study of evolution tells us that it happened, but you need to study the anatomy and physiology of the ear to understand how it works.

Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy? — Skalidris

I think this question shows a fundamental misconception of what philosophy is and what it's role is in human understanding of the world. First, let's strip away those aspects of philosophy that have nothing much to do with science - Ethics and morals, aesthetics, politics, maybe religion. That leaves us with metaphysics, including ontology and epistemology. I see other disciplines; e.g. philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language; as included within those branches.

Ontology investigates the nature of reality. Epistemology investigates what we know about the nature of reality, how we know it, and how certain we are of it. Together, ontology and epistemology set the rules for knowledge, including science. The fact that we live in a universe which is understandable and behaves in coherent and consistent ways is an ontological principle. The scientific method is a set of epistemological rules.

Science can't pull itself up by it's bootstraps. That's the thing, one of the things, that philosophy is needed for.

Yes, that. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This is a clip I've used several times here on the forum. It's from "Billy Elliot," a great movie. Billy, a working class boy from a rough mining town has just finished his audition for a prestigious dancing school:



Actually, I see I've used it on this thread before.

Would you call this a "flow" state? — ZzzoneiroCosm

"Flow" is not a term I would normally use in this context, but if by that you mean

...that sense of fluidity between your body and mind, where you are totally absorbed by and deeply focused on something, beyond the point of distraction. Time feels like it has slowed down. Your senses are heightened. You are at one with the task at hand, as action and awareness sync to create an effortless momentum.

then I guess the answer is yes.

@GLEN willows

But the Churchland's (and by the way I don't agree with everything they write) use the term eliminative materialism.
— GLEN willows

I've tagged an article about the Churchlands in the Atlantic, but I haven't read it yet. I'll see if I have anything to add after I read it. — T Clark

Forgot to ask. Do you have a reference for a relatively brief discussion of the Churchlands' ideas that you like.

By the way, I'm always ambivalent about your posts. They are generally well-written, interesting, and well-thought out, and sometimes even right. On they other hand, you always have long quotes and links to articles that I have to read or I'll miss something important. I'm a busy man!! Why can't you write facile, snarky, trivial, brief posts like...well, you know who?

Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes. — Ed Feser

I don't find this very convincing. Again, it comes back to the hierarchical knowledge. It is not reasonable to expect processes and phenomena at one level to fully explain those at a higher level. Chemistry does not fully explain living organisms, but life can certainly "be identified with" chemical processes.

First person consciousness is not objective, it is 'what observes'. — Wayfarer

Calling consciousness "first person consciousness" is redundant. It is possible to study consciousness objectively just like it is possible to look at eyes, think about minds, etc. Introspection is a valid method of inference, as is observing conscious actions and speech.

But the Churchland's (and by the way I don't agree with everything they write) use the term eliminative materialism. — GLEN willows

I've tagged an article about the Churchlands in the Atlantic, but I haven't read it yet. I'll see if I have anything to add after I read it.

I would argue consciousness is a separate "thing" from the brain — GLEN willows

I agree with this.

I think consciousness may require a NEW method of study - that we don't yet have. You know - like when they invented those "microscopes" to study bacteria? — GLEN willows

There is already a method of study for consciousness and other mental processes - psychology, of which cognitive science is a branch. Advances in brain imaging in the last 20 years or so have changed psychology in the same way that microscopes changed biology. That doesn't mean more new methods won't be found.

‘Rational inference’, which neuroscientists, materialists, and everyone else rely on whenever they use the word ‘because’, neither has, nor requires, a scientific grounding. Rational inference depends wholly and solely on the relations of ideas - ‘is’, ‘is not’, ‘is greater than’, ‘is the same as’, and so on. Judgements based on those simple elements are intrinsic to any rational claim about anything whatever, including the claim that thought can be explained in physical terms. Yet those very same elements of thought are not the object of scientific analysis, because they precede scientific analysis - in order to engage in scientific analysis, such judgements are needed in the first place. — Wayfarer

I'm kind of lost. Is this intended as an argument against rational inference about mental phenomena or against any rational inference at all?

A practical example. Consider a neurological expert who claims that data shows that some area within the brain performs a function. You won’t see anything like ‘a function’ when you look at the data, which presumably consists of graphical images of neural activity and so on. You must take the experts word for it that this data means such-and-such. That ‘meaning’ is always internal to the act of judgement - you won’t see that in the data, not unless you are likewise trained in the interpretation of what the data means. — Wayfarer

Again, inference from observations is the way we know almost everything. When I'm reading about some scientific finding, I often say to myself "How did they get that conclusion from that data?" I assume that they know what they are talking about. Is that the problem?

That's mice, right? With smells. So good luck with working out the neurology of Justice, or Truth, or Beauty! — Wayfarer

This is not a very convincing story. Some thoughts:

• Smell is a different kind of thing than justice.
• Just cause I can't do it now doesn't mean I won't be able to.
• Just because the results I've gotten are complex and hard to understand doesn't mean my conclusions are wrong.
• Even if I can never determine the neurology of justice, that doesn't mean it isn't the result of neurological processes.
• I've read that scientists are working to develop a vocabulary of brain states as measured by PET scan or MRI. They can use that to tell what people are thinking in a very crude way. That may not be crude forever or even for long.

I support democracy and majority rule but I certainly would never suggest dissenters just 'suck it up.' Organise, protest, campaign, even engage in civil disobedience but I would also emphasise the importance of a non-violent strategy. Otherwise, you are not being true to yourself and agree to be like a carpet for those you don't agree with to freely walk all over. — universeness

I don't disagree with anything you've written. As I indicated, I am ambivalent about the issue.

The statement "eventually consciousness and qualia will eventually be explained with neuroscience" is speculative, but no more so that "consciousness and qualia will never be explained by neuroscience." — GLEN willows

I think you'll find a lot of people here who are sympathetic to the position you support. I certainly am. At the same time, I can understand why people resist. Consciousness is so personal, intimate, fundamental, experientially mysterious. How could it all just be mechanical. How the heck do electrical impulses become the movies I see in my head? The brain is outside, but I'm here inside. They are obviously different types of things. They are in different categories.

I strongly believe that everything I experience results from processes that take place in my body, primarily in the nervous system. If I may steal a concept from another discipline, there are no hidden variables. But saying that "explains" consciousness is like saying chemistry explains life. And the answer is (drumroll) emergence. Yes, it has become a cliche, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Saying I can break down (analyze) mental phenomena into biological processes isn't the same as saying I can build (synthesize) mental processes up from biological leggo blocks. It doesn't work both ways. That is the hallmark of strong emergence. As P.W. Anderson wrote, "More is Different."

We've had lots of discussions about this here. If you're lucky, Apokrisis will come along and explain downward constraints in hierarchical systems.

Just wanted to say that this is a great conversation you two are having. I don't have anything substantive to add, but I've really enjoyed reading along.

This from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences:

Women received 61% of the humanities bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2015—four percentage points higher than the share among all degree recipients. From 1987 to 2015, the annual percentage of women earning bachelor’s degrees in the humanities remained within a range of four percentage points—from just above 58% (in 1995) to a high of slightly above 62% (in the early 2000s).

With 61% of the field’s degrees going to women, the humanities were most akin to the fine and performing arts (62%) in the representation of women among bachelor’s degree recipients in 2015. The health and medical sciences (with 84%), education (72%), and social sciences (63%) each had a greater share of women completing degrees in the field than the humanities, while engineering (19%) and business and management (47%) had substantially smaller shares.

About the same percentage of men and women in the US have college degrees. A much larger percentage of women than men are enrolled in college and a much larger percentage of women complete their degree.

That’s an interpretation - in the US particularly, it depends on your position in relation to religion. Realistically, the intention is to protect BOTH. — Possibility

Maybe I overstated my case. When I think of separation of church and state, I usually think of protecting the political system against a theocracy such as ISIS. I was pointing out that protection of religion is just as important. I understand that is what you are saying.

This line was always a favorite. It seems to have some link to Pascal's: "All of humanity's problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room alone." — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think you're right. The Tao Te Ching emphasizes living lives without desiring more than you have or need. That would include novelty, excitement, fashionable activities. Some say the passage from the Tao Te Ching is one of those that endorses paternalistic government - the ruler keeping his people ignorant and docile.

For what it's worth, the trips I took to Europe with my family in 1989 and with my brother in 2014 were among the high points of my life. I still think about them all the time.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
— T Clark

This I connect to the notion of a flexible, flowing self-confidence. For example, 20 years ago I would often schedule my daily and weekly tasks to be sure all were completed in a timely fashion. Whereas today (I'm 46, for reference) my attitude is: this will happen; just wait and see it happen. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Acting without acting, wu wei, is one of the most important ideals of Taoism. Have you had the experience of spontaneous action arising from within without forethought or intention? Maybe when you're being most creative. I certainly have. Action arising from your true self. The subject shows up time after time in many verses.

A lot of spiritual emotion in that line. — ZzzoneiroCosm

One of my favorite verses. The line after the one you quoted was shocking to me when I first read it:

I do not know whose child it is,
It is an image of what precedes God.

Lao Tzu says the Tao comes before God. What could be more amazing, radical, maybe blasphemous than that.

I certainly get the point of the 'secular state', if the alternative is officially-mandated belief. The point of the secular state is to provide a framework within which you can practice any religion or none, but there's a vocal minority who will always take that to mean that none is better than any. — Wayfarer

As I noted, I am personally ambivalent. It's no surprise the country is too.

there are many other examples (although admittedly, the Santa Monica example was not as simple as a shop-window display.) — Wayfarer

That's what confused me. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the US where people are not allowed to show religious symbols on privately-owned property. The story you linked to was about an incident in a publicly owned park. The second amendment has been interpreted to forbid government at all levels from involvement in religious displays. I'm ambivalent about that.

According to Pew, 70% of Americans are Christian, 6% are other faiths (Judaism 2% , Islam 1%), and 22% are no affiliation. I would guess that most of the 22% unaffiliated were raised as Christians and are more or less comfortable with Christian symbols. Part of me wants to tell non-Christians, of which I am one - "You live in a Christian nation, just suck it up." On the other hand, I believe the separation is important.

I don’t know about all peoples descriptions of a possible god but to me the mere physical properties of light or any energy for that matter puts it top of the list of my personal contenders. — Benj96

You've listed a lot of the properties of light. It's an impressive list, but I don't see what it has to do with God.

It appears to slow down through material but individual photons do not slow down their path is just riddled with bouncing around off material before exiting. — Benj96

Sorry to be a nitpicker, but this is not the reason light slows down in different media. Here's a really good explanation.