« Evidence of Rumsfeld's Christian war | Main | Science is the only way of knowing objective truth »

May 18, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I liked What the Bleep but don't remember the part where it had application to anything man could use as a religion. Guess I need to see it again.

What I do believe, having had some New Age friends, is that any religion can become fundamentalist with thinking it knows it all, wanting to find control, and a way to manipulate things through spiritual power. That tendency is not limited to the so-called mainstream ones. Man often is afraid of what he doesn't understand and wants to figure out some way to maneuver it to his benefit. You see it in any religion.

There might be a system out and that this all makes sense with an order to it all, but it just might be above our pay grade to really grasp-- even the so-called experts although there is another possibility and it involves us trying to find shortcuts.

A movie I like and see again sometimes is 'Jurassic Park' and yes it's entertainment, but some of Crighton's lines really say a lot. Like-- the danger from those who want to build on the discovery of someone else, who want to take the hard work of another, and leap right over it to some conclusion they can then draw without their own hard work. It happens in science but you also see it in the 'spiritual' books and that includes atheist ones. I suspect we have to our own discovery, can't get more than a start on it (if we are lucky with who we read or follow) from someone else. Trying to take their work and draw our own conclusions is the way to end up making gigantic mistakes.

In many ways, that is a frustrating thought as we only have so many years to live (although if we reincarnate that's not so limited) but it means we can't depend on a pop religion or some guru who will tell us how to do it by following his path (which might've even been right for him). We have to, on our own, discover, because it really is the only way to grow and understand. Nothing wrong with books and other people's theories but we can't leapfrog from them to our own spiritual path or even to understanding what this is all about. That's for us to find.

Without slating the religious, in my opinion good science is far more comfortable with mystery then the spiritual who require an explanation.

Science is concerned with solving unknowns. Theories are often speculated but will only be held accurate having been tested. So science has a standard of proof that inherently exceeds metaphysical, philopohical or religious worldviews.

Gould referred to non-overlapping magesteria (NOM), which i think simply means these domains are independent of one another. Its probably a pretty fairly sensible outlook considering the intractable problem of religion's unexplainable deity's as opposed to science's manmade limited measurement.

This guy stenger wrote an earlier book where he did overlap and tried showing there is no scientific evidence for god. It does not mean there is not a supernatural deity, only that there is no scientific evidence for this.

The opposite occurs with mystics trying to find support for their theories with science. Free thought is one thing, but pseudo-science should come with a health warning, since often such authors misunderstand or misrepresent science to show proof for their mystical belief.

Whenever one sees something like 'science of the soul' and such like, its just plain dodgy imo. I saw Maharashi Mahesh Yogi in the New Scientist article above, whose transcental meditiation technique seems interesting enough in its own right, but he appears to hold it our as being based on a scietific unified field theory.

Science has simply not come up with such a theory, in fact its what the greatest minds of the last half-century have been struggling with. I therefore doubt very much that Maharashi has solved this unified theory or even understands it, and yet its being held out to support his meditation technique. Why?

Why not let the meditation technique stand on its own, rather than putting forward nonsense science that the man knows nothing about it and sell it to hordes of gullible desperados as being the real thing.

This is what irritates about the flakey kooks, the dishonesty.

George, yours is a great comment. I much like what you said and your sober way of thinking. I'd have to agree that far too many spiritual or new-age or mystical types seem to try to validate and bolster their untested unproven and irrational suppositions with what amounts to faulty science, unscientific pseudo-science. And in doing that, they actually weaken their premise, not strengthen it. And TM is a good example. TM has supposedly benefitted a great many people, or so they claim. But for TM proponents to say that TM proves a (non-existant) supposed "unified field theory", makes it them look fake... and thats because that is fake. TM should simply stand on its own merits, what they may be. And not try to act as if they have the ultimate answer to everything.

The same goes for the RSSB's so-called "Science of the Soul".... which is a false claim because Santmat is entirely mysticism, not science. So it's bogus of RS to say "science", when in reality there is nothing scientific about it at all. It is simply a method of meditation with alot of theological and cosmological belief baggage attached to it. There is no testable proveable objective science in it.

So I am really glad that you have brought up and articulated this important point. Thanks.


Some one has rightly said,
"Science does not need mysticism
and mysticism does not science
but man need both".

George,

“Why not let the meditation technique stand on its own”

What do you suggest someone who doesn’t know anything about meditation technique should do?

“…rather than putting forward nonsense science that the man knows nothing about it and sell it to hordes of gullible desperados as being the real thing”

What about the gullible desperados who are relying on scientists to prove all and everything?

“This is what irritates about the flakey kooks, the dishonesty.”

How do you know who is honest or dishonest and what makes you think your type of arrogance isn’t just as irritating?

flakey, the reason people rely on scientists is because they actually come up with new knowledge that makes our lives better. Like, computer technology, cell phones, body scanning diagnostic devices. When do you recall the front page of a newspaper having a headline about a religion discovering some fundamental fact about the cosmos?

Answer: never. It doesn't happen. So people who admire science aren't gullible. They're smart.

Brian,

Scientists may be making your life better while you are still alive but are you still going to be relying on science to help you when you are dead? How are scientists going to prove what happens after death, how can they ever prove anything metaphysical anyway?


tAo,
Yes, i agree. I don't have anything against TM per se, it might be fantastic, I simply don't know, but I do know no-one has come up with a unified field theory. Thats dishonesty.

rakesh,
Yes, thats an interesting comment shared by many philopshers, but perhaps man actually 'needs' neither (like all other lifeforms on the planet).

flakey,
"What do you suggest someone who doesn’t know anything about meditation technique should do?"
--- Simply learn the meditation technique itself. I understand TM has a standalone practical program. This has nothing to do with unfield field theory. Why is the pseudo-science attached?

"What about the gullible desperados who are relying on scientists to prove all and everything?"
--- Fair enough, but who would these be? How many fundamentalist scientists are there and has there been a war fought over science?

The whole point of science is too work within its limitations as dictated by evidence. If the evidence is not there, its not science. Rather than knowing everything, science has an objective cut-off point to knowledge dicated by the available evidence.

Death is a cut-off point, which science knows nothing of, never claimed too. This is the domain of spirituality.

"How do you know who is honest or dishonest and what makes you think your type of arrogance isn’t just as irritating?"
--- I apologise if I came accross as arrogant, i am simply giving my opinion. Does it not irritate you when ppl distort the truth? I get very irritable because it means ppl are taken for a ride.

Mysticism is very interesting, but these sorts of misrepresentations do it absolutely no good. Its almost like they're looking to science for validation. what I like about mysticism is that its based on practical knowledge, i.e. doing something, not dogmatic manmade scripture (religion) or pseudoscience to give it validity. If there's anything to it, it stands and falls on the practical experiences achievable.

George,

--- Simply learn the meditation technique itself. I understand TM has a standalone practical program. This has nothing to do with unfield field theory. Why is the pseudo-science attached?

I don’t know much about TM. Did “What the Bleep” set itself up as pseudo-science?

Isn’t Quantum Physics itself a pseudo-science? Isn’t it making tenuous connections between spirituality and science?

--- Fair enough, but who would these be? How many fundamentalist scientists are there and has there been a war fought over science?

Haven’t actually witnessed any scientists engaging in fisticuffs, but you never know.

Countries have competed over scientific intelligence which has certainly been used during wars such as biological and chemical warfare, electronic warfare, aerodynamics such as guided weapons and of course the use of atomic bombs.

--- Does it not irritate you when ppl distort the truth? I get very irritable because it means ppl are taken for a ride.

Is it not up to people to find their own truth? People are taken for a ride all the time, they buy into everything they are told (usually through the media).

Anyway, I don't belong here with the cynics, atheists and skeptics. Thought I would have a laugh if I called myself flakey, not so.

whatever,

No quantum physics is not pseudo-science, it has overwhelming evidence to support it. What makes it obscure is that its at such a small scale that its counterintuitive to our appreciation of the physical world. The science of quantum physics is so sound that it makes incredibly accurate predictions validated by experiment.

This cannot be said for supernatural or unexplained phenomenon. The level of evidence cannot even begin to compare.

TM or any other mystic tradition may result in many phenomenon ranging from improved health, to coping mechanisms to supernatural mystical experiences - but these are all subjective.

LOL, flakey you take on so many forms its hard to keep track.

flakey, I'll throw your questions back at you, slightly altered.

How can you, or anyone else, prove what happens after death? How can you, or anyone else, ever prove anything metaphysical anyway?

Science says "I don't know" when asked about what, if anything, happens after death, or what, if anything, exists beyond the physical universe.

Can you say, and prove, anything else? Saying is easy, of course. It's the proving, the evidence, that is difficult.

its a relief to come to other topic other discussion board,with almost the same old friends...

great..

first of all Science of soul is the name given to the book its not at all a theory...

and i think science is just another invention of a man kind..to make more new discoveries..

and yes when everything related to a search..is termed as science why not science for soul..
if we see,its indeed a science..

""Without slating the religious, in my opinion good science is far more comfortable with mystery then the spiritual who require an explanation.""

well science also require explanation and science which involve man making new inventions and discoveries..is related to a limited mind....yes ofcourse..
and spirituality is something which is related to super conscious mind..
so as its i can say not out of approach but difficult to approach and reach we ask for explanation because of lack of much hold and knowldge about it.

science is yet to prove itself..

"Mysticism is very interesting, but these sorts of misrepresentations do it absolutely no good"

well mispresentation is caused not by others..but by self..
though by seeing m any mispresentative followers u may get that thought..
but still it is the anyalysing mind which get into the trap of satsifying ...and the mind has the habit of asking for more more n more..

"the reason people rely on scientists is because they actually come up with new knowledge that makes our lives better. Like, computer technology, cell phones, body scanning diagnostic devices. When do you recall the front page of a newspaper having a headline about a religion discovering some fundamental fact about the cosmos?"

well a very personl point of view..
scientist never make life better,though very less..but they make lives more worser..worst ever..
the new technology whatsoever getting invented will do may do and is doing harm to man kind
computers...internet...cellphone
computers..related diseases are in mthe market now..
internet though it may have many uses,but still it has taken us to a place where one mans life seems to be less to explore all..
and its again giving mind the sight of black hole..
cellphone...the radiations which is surronding the whole world because of wirless technology we r going to see very complications very soon...
from the science age and inventions age we are ust thinking that we r making lives beter but for may ways we r making life worse also..

and abt religion discoveries and cosmlogy who all r interested very few..
today the news paper is lead by politicians and corporate companies..
do u find any worthful news in newspaper
i dont find anything left in newspaers and in media
nothing..


and i see mysticism and science is totally different issues..
science is very complicated because we make it complicated
mysrticism is very simple and easy..
but we live in an illusion world where everything is temporary..
i ask one question for science lovers
if science is so great
and do not believe in god and vice verse..
then why not science had still not find the realy mystery behind a human beings heart beat and his life and about the death.

well i havent been into history much,
but if you people go in back..
we were far more scientic thousand years ago..
if we compare our scientist today..

today science has its limitation...time wasting time consuming and very scary as well..

but i really feel pity for those scientist
well everyone knows and believes that there is some power behind our existence we ccan it as creator of this universe.
its so pity..
that the creator who created us ..started searching and exploring the creator thru science..the science again a indirect source given to man kind again thru the creator itself..

i do not know when everyone would understand the reality..stick to it
and start working on it.

you all can come to india and go to india go to many old forts and can discover many great scientific invention made hundred of years ago...
which is just nothing as comparative
to todays world..

todays science is artifical...
taking and going deep into more of illusionary world..

just to divert man kind from the main purpose to the artificial purpose of life..

and these inventions will be going on..
forum like this will be discussing on
and finally death will knock the door..
and soon the members of the forum will start reducing
abd after 100 years again these forum will be the same with lots of discussions discussions and duscuccions..


but what we need is results
very simple thinking
not just being smart and feeling happy..

even smartness is temporary..


i just came to this topic
just felt
and what all i wanted to expressed
i have done that..

just to see what kind of reactions i recieve..so t hat i can have the idea of the otehr side viewer..

Being married to a scientist but not one myself, I see this from a different perspective. I hear how the tests can be skewed by someone with an agenda; how data that conflicts sometimes is just discarded; how today most science is paid for (even in universities) by industry; how scientists have egos and want to get their agenda proven even if everything they see goes against it; and I think to turn science into a religion is as bad a mistake as any other man-made concoction.

Science is not neutral, just waiting for truth whatever that might turn out to be. It does experiments, looks at results with an eye generally to proving a theory. Books are written that way, reputations created, money made, and it's not always based on looking at all the facts. Sometimes they aren't even all possible to find. Science is a method, a tool but it can be misused like any other.

Currently in the US, we don't fund very much pure science thanks to the budget problems. Universities are looking for someone to back what they do and too often that requires making their results-- salable. Industry has to make a profit and when they do research the goal there is moneymaking.

Not to say science hasn't done many many good things for us but to take it as the last word or believe everything it declares would be impossible anyway as it often disagrees with itself-- based on the same test results. and the next generation may look at the same data and say-- what the bleep!

Manish,

Nope, something is only a science if it is supported by objective evidence.

There is a science of evolution and of quantum physics, which both have extensive objective evidence to support them including mathematical equations, experiments, repeatable predictions, peer group review, etc.

It may well be that a soul exists, but since there is no objective evidence for a soul, it cannot be a science.

A more accurate title for 'science of the soul' would be 'mystic method for the soul'.

It is quite simple really as you say.

Rain,
Yip, its not completely neutral, but such is the competition and scrutiny in science, its highly unlikely that a false or knowingly false theory will be retained for long. In fact, many scientists make their names by disproving or poking holes in theories and re-examining the evidence.

It does not claim to be absolute or wholly accurate and is constantly being refined.

I don't believe science is the last word in much. Questions as to whether it ultimately is of benefit or detriment to mankind are philopshopical.

Nevertheless, no other belief system (philopshphy, metaphysics, mysticisim or religion) offers a more objective weighting of knowledge.

If science is swayed by agendas and human ego, relatively speaking, i reckon its not even close as compared to religious dogma.

Since this article is about pseudoscience, I believe it is incorrect for mystics to try hold out their beliefs as scientific validated, unless they actually are, which is not the case.

Science as is hypothesized by modern man is hardly scientific at all

Manish is quite correct, the problem with crystalized hypothesis based on so called 'evidence' is much along what Rain is projecting, that it is very much intellectually egotistically and agenda driven, hardly purely scientific at all.

On the contrary mystic experience is exactly scientific except the laboratory that one would have to enter into to discover or uncover the truth experienced and correlated by the mystic scientist has much finer substance to it, the apperati utilized far more accurate and far less subjected to subjective agenda based intellectual reasoning.

Problem is that they will never come to terms with truth from this baseless position of fagnmented skeptical egoistic scientific reasoning, never in a thousand or million or billion or trillion years.

The only hope any seeker after truth has in uncovering the mystery of it, is to enter the true laboratory and perform the true scientific experiment and in so doing follow the exact tenet that Socrates suggested 2500 years ago and that is to 'Know Thyself'.

Ashy/shabrata, I will leave this comment up, as non-sensical as it is, even though my general practice has been to delete your comments -- since almost universally they are insulting, profane, and dismissive of this blog's purpose (I keep wondering: "If this blog is so useless, why does this guy spend so much time on it?")

In today's post I'll probably use your thoughts as inspiration to illustrate the "thinking disorder" that afflicts so many religious people. They don't understand some basic facts about science, subjectivity/objectivity, and the nature of truth.

As George has been correctly pointing out, there is a big difference between "real" science and "spiritual" science. The latter really doesn't deserve the name of science -- a conclusion I've come to after arguing otherwise for quite a few years. (This is one big benefit of science: practitioners of it feel free to change their minds.)

"Problem is that they will never come to terms with truth from this baseless position of fagnmented skeptical egoistic scientific reasoning, never in a thousand or million or billion or trillion years."

---So, what are these "terms of truth" mentioned above?
---Who created the terms or conditions that this truth must follow?

Real science? Not sure what that is. Science is run by humans. Humans have agendas. Humans want to think they can prove something they believe and humans like to think they have control. Science can be as much a religion for that control as any other. It provides some people comfort and a feeling of security but it's still human run...

Theoretically science is about devising an experiment to prove that something you believe is true; then repeating that experiment and proving it works again. It's as good as that experiment and as good as the scientists who might throw out whatever didn't fit their hoped for conclusion. One generation believes one thing and the next debunks it to be debunked again by a future one.

Science can do some things very well but other things are based on assumptions as much as any religion. Science could be better if we had the ability to fund it without agendas. We are not in that situation currently.

I see value in science but just think that when it's put up there as the answer-- it's not. We might not even know the question-- as in 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.'

Rain,

"I see value in science but just think that when it's put up there as the answer-- it's not. We might not even know the question-- as in 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.'"

---Keep the question simple and specific. Don't be so concerned with the need for an answer. Wait for a reply, in the form of information.

Roger

Rain is spot on, it is all agenda based, even as this dichotomous churchlessness is agenda based, because it cannot stand on its own free thought non prescribed principles, watch this comment disappear into thin air faster than you can say 'theory of relativity'.

Firstly ask yourself the question 'what is science'?

To some it means the study of the material universe and the material universe only. Recently they have started knocking at the doors of the mysteries by prodding their intellectual reasoning towards the unknowns such as black holes, quarks, quantum realities, what supports matter, time in relation to space etc. etc.

The intellect will try and set up totem poles to these theories, such as relativity, evolution, string theories, etc, yet not even half a millennium ago you would have been burnt at the stake if you even suggested the earth was not flat.

So it is an ever producing prognosis towards something we like to call 'knowledge', yet it can hardly ever be referred to as such, because it is not, it is simply intellectual information gleaned by those supreme intellectual thinkers who can 'rationalize' a concept strongly enough to formulate a theory into acceptance.

Have any of you actually been out into the cosmos and verified for yourself that this earth is in fact an orb floating or circulating in an elliptical orbit around a medium sized star and is not flat and is not the center of our universe. I betcha not a one of you can verify any of that categorically from your own perception, yet you will vouch with all reasoning certainty that it is the case, says who? Neil Armstrong, Copernicus, Christopher Columbus, or Albert Einstein?

Similarly with theory of relativity, quantum physics, theory of evolution etc. In time perhaps it all gets disproved or superseded by greater understanding and more in depth reasoning using finer and finer levels of comprehension and apparati, and then guess what may occur, horror of horrors, the mystic and the scientist might even eventually meet face to face and discover, well waddaya know, we are one and the same, just different skins sheathing the very same essential core reality of everything that ever was, is or will be.

Come off it Ashy, the standard of proof of science as compared to mysticism is far higher.

Whats the equation for the soul?
Soul = (Spirit+Love)*Heart

Quantum physics has a raft of its own mathematics thats been validated by experiment to be incredibly accurate.

Besides, I thought union of soul with the shabd could only occur with the intellect discarded, which is precisely opposite to science?

I am not saying science is better in all things, but what i am saying is that anyone claiming 'science of the soul' or 'unified field theory for TM' is talking crap.

Science can take many forms, one is to begin with a hypothesis, but will only become a formed science when that hypothesis is proven accurate by objective evidence. Science can also be used to explain the natural world around us, so that we dont sacrifice our siamese cats to please the god of lightning, so that the local snake oil salesman does not sell us a crock, etc.

Even the gurus think science is useful. Why do they take aeroplanes everywhere? Surely astral travel is easier and cheaper?

I reckon science is pretty hopeless at explaining the really big questions we ask or of giving human lives any meaning.

But there is no ways 'science of the soul' is akin to the science of evolution, quantum physics, theoretical physics or any other science.

There's another difference which is science is rationalised thought that explains something to such an accurate degree that allows the results to be repeatable every time. So an aeroplane weighing 350 tons can get off the ground, and whats more the knowledge of how this miracle can happen is widely known.

A guru may have engaged in astral travel through the planes of existence, but how to do this is not widely known, in fact there is no objective evidence for it.

I've seen an aeroplane taking off, but i have not seen a guru taxing out on runway 5.


What are you relating 'science' to, that which you can see, feel, touch, hear with your senses, that which is 'struck' by resonance of physical reverberations within a physical medium?

Is that the sum total of our so called 'scientific' understanding, of everything we see, hear and feel around us, based purely on sensual 'reality'.

Science - the real Science, that Science of the Socrates' and Plotinus' and of those you like to think of as flakey kook mystics, is a 'science' of a much higher, and dare I say it, a much more real phenomenon.

Sure they need jumbo jets and helicopters to transport a physical entity from one part of this physical realm to the next, perhaps you would be convinced if somebody dematerialized and beamed himself up like 'Scotty' from continent to continent, but thats not the 'natural' way. Some aliens may have even learned the 'science' or 'art' of beating time warps for all we 'know', but then we don't 'know' all that much at all do we? Apart from the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution, how about the theory of 'involution' or the theory of 'absoluteness'?

You pooh pooh the idea that mystic understanding is in fact a science, but I'm here to suggest to you that it is in fact far more 'scientific' than anything Newton or Einstein or Hawkins might have dreamed up.

Kool writes: "Have any of you actually been out into the cosmos and verified for yourself that this earth is in fact an orb floating or circulating in an elliptical orbit around a medium sized star and is not flat and is not the center of our universe".

No, I have not had the pleasure.

Do you believe the earth is flat?

I expect that you believe the earth to be round. If you do, your reasons for believing the earth is round are probably the same as mine.

If you don't believe the earth to be round, please explain why. I am open to suggestions.

LOL, my limited mind cannot grasp your logic.

If someone could beam up like Scotty, and there was evidence for this, then it would be a science. But there is no evidence, so it is pseudo-science or science fiction. It may become science, as might the soul, but that would require objective evidence.

You hypothesize that mystic understanding is ‘in fact’ more scientific, yet give no facts or objective evidence for others to weigh-up the validity of your hypothesis. Do you know of a single equation modelling the soul or an experiment proving it?

For the space example, the only person to go into space (of that group) was Armstrong. However, the scientific model of the earth as a rough sphere orbiting the sun was established before Armstrong’s visual photos. Before Copernicus even, Ptolemy had measured the earth’s curvature to arrive at the orbiting spheres model, which debunked the prevailing flat earth theory. The flat earth theory was based on man’s limited perception, but science provided a more accurate model of reality.

Quantum theory is such a science developed from first principles, not guided by human agenda or physical senses. Einstein himself struggled tremendously with his own theories (and Bohr), which seemed so counter-intuitive. But its not the same as a vague unsupported gut-feel theory like a ‘science’ of the soul, instead it is very accurate, counter-intuitive and has overwhelming evidence to support it.

Being open-minded to the point of skewing reality could envisage a scientific conspiracy with faked moon landings and scientists all getting their calculations wrong, etc, etc - but its highly unlikely since the evidence is overwhelming. It may be that there is a soul, but there is no objective evidence for it. Likewise, there may be a unified field theory, but it has yet to be validated by objective evidence.

There are very few absolute truths, but the very standard of proof required by science, dictates that its theories have a likelihood of being closer to the truth then others.

You are right that science refines itself as new evidence is revealed. It follows the evidence. How many gurus or religions can say that OR have ever admitted to being wrong? Instead science by definition is falsifiable (Popper). Science and mysticism may agree, but mysticism can never be a science until objective evidence is given.

What do mystic traditions want with science in the first place?

I understood most mystic traditions believe intellectual thinking is of limited use at the highest levels.

Also, that the mystical experience is a subjective intuitive one.

Why the need to refer to science with its contradictory tenets of an over-reliance on the intellect and objective evidence?

On one hand the mystics decry science as being arrogant and limited, yet misuse it to support their mystical beliefs.

Well, which is it?

George,

You seem to be annoyed at the word science being used as in Science of the Soul. My dictionary says besides "being the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" it can also be "(archaic) knowledge of any kind". Yeh, yeh... I know you're gonna laugh at that one.

Another thought is have you heard of "Esoteric Science", you may find this interesting:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Esoteric_Science.html


"(archaic) knowledge of any kind"

---I agree, knowledge of any kind, obtained through the scientific method.

Science can be corrupted. No debate there.

However, the Scientific Method, in it's purist and simple process, has nothing to do with this corruption.

what pray tell is this pure uncorrupted absolute sacrosanct knowledge derived out of this 'Scientific Method'?

Ashy/sharbata, science doesn't use words like "pure," "uncorrupted," "absolute," and "sacrosanct." Religious believers such as yourself use those words. You're trying to make science into a religion. It isn't.

Note that the scientific method, as shown in the diagram in my most recent post, is a circle -- or spiral, really. It makes continual progress toward increased knowledge of reality, adjusting and changing theories as observations and experiments are made.

Thus when someone says, "Science can't be trusted because new laws of nature keep being discovered," this is precisely the strength of science, not a weakness.

For example, Newton's laws of motion weren't proven to be wrong by Einstein. They still work fine for most purposes. Einstein just extended human understanding through relativity theory, broadening our picture of the universe.

"what pray tell is this pure uncorrupted absolute sacrosanct knowledge derived out of this 'Scientific Method'?"

---Again, the word "knowledge" needs to be discussed and debated.
---Pure, uncorrupted, absolute, and sacrosanct are words One could find at a "Dog and Pony" show.

Precisely.

Nobody 'knows' anything at all, at least out of their intellect they don't, because it is all hypothetically based theorems derived out of building one block of intellectual reason upon another like a house of cards, when truth comes to town, all fall down.

Einstein on top of Newton on top of Hegel on top of Kant on top of Hawkins on top of Dawkins on top of Who, such is the derived assimilated 'knowledge' we profess to be 'true'.

Its not, not by a very long shot is it 'true' at all, just one formulated hypothesis on top of another.

Truth is something quite distinctly different, the basic difference being it is 'real' and not make believe intellectual hypothesis, and not subject to change one day or year or millennium to the next.

Ah, more words. I keep waiting for substance. So what is the truth that doesn't fall down? And why is it that scientific truth is so solid, if you're correct?

There is no evidence that the laws of nature have changed in the 14 billion years since the Big Bang. That sure sounds like they haven't changed "one day or year or millennium to the next."

As is usually the case with your comments, I feel like you're trying to say something that isn't being said very clearly. Please describe the "distinctly different truth" that you refer to (I bet George wants to ask you this question also, so I'll beat him to it).

"Truth is something quite distinctly different, the basic difference being it is 'real' and not make believe intellectual hypothesis, and not subject to change one day or year or millennium to the next."

---I like to use the term "Absolute Truth" in reference to the above statement.
---Again, my terminology.
---I don't know what Absolute Truth of something or anything is. Never said I did.
---However, there is a subjective objective realm, we have an appearance in. I have no problem with that. So, I like the Scientific Method, and try to use it in my day to day appearances.
---Right here, right now.......

'substance' unfortunately one will never find here, as hard as you might try it will always be absent from so called hypothetical 'reason', written or spoken, it is but a shadow of itself, will never be uncovered in the shadow of illusory intellectual rationalization.

Substance cannot be sought in a vacuum of 'unknowing'.

Only those that do 'know' can impart a slight hint at its potential perfection, so if we deny its existence, or are skeptical of its reality, what hope is there of ever embracing it.

One stands at arms length out of fear of becoming nullified to no-thing, out of fear of losing ones precious self identity, and we in the same breath seek 'substance'.

Either open the mind to 'true substance' or close it and 'believe' in superfluous material illusion.

One of them is real and the other is false, ask the quantum theorists which one is which, I bet they don't quite know anymore.

[Note: after this, Ashy kept on commenting in an even more meaningless and increasingly rant'y way. So those comments were deleted. I'm trying to show the guy that if he wants to discuss things in a mature fashion here, that's fine. But preaching to the non-choir, that isn't fine. Plus, commenters need to say their piece and not get super-repetitive, clogging up the "recent comments" list.]

Ashy/kool, a final comment -- because you are going around in circles (as am I, trying to get a point across to you).

You say that ultimate truth is totally contained within a person's awareness. There is no objective sign of it. Yet you also say that some people do "know" and we can trust their hints of "potential perfection."

So how can we tell who knows, and who doesn't? Christians say they know. Muslims say they know. Buddhists say they know. Hindus say they know. Every religion and every spiritual/mystic path claims to know stuff others don't.

Yet there is no evidence that practitioners of any faith know more about a theorized metaphysical reality than those in any other faith do.

Thus this supports my oft-repeated contention that spiritual independence is the only way to go. Since it is impossible to tell who knows, and who doesn't, our own knowing is the only sort of knowledge that can be trusted.

Hence, be your own guide, your own guru, your own master, your own preacher. Because there is no way of telling if anyone else knows about spiritual reality -- so trust your own experience, not anyone else's.

[Note from Brian: I decided to leave up this Ashy/kool comment to show how ridiculous his rants are -- this one isn't even as bad as many others I've deleted. Wow! Science has zero substance to show anyone? Gosh, how did Ashy post his comment all the way from Capetown, South Africa? Why, could it have been with the aid of...science!? No, guess not. Must have been a miracle, not using a computer or the Internet, since science knows nothing about reality, supposedly.]

'Science' is more religious in its self protectionist propaganda than the biggest fundamentalist theologians of them all.

They got zero 'substance' to show anyone, only highfalutin, hypothetical, false god delusional daydreams about pretty much squat zero reality at all.

Show me the goddamn reality, stop chit chatting away about all the bunkum bullshit balderdash thats baffling your self deluded indoctrinated brains.

whatever,

nope i wont laught at all, and your dictionary definition was a chink in my viewpoint i believe.

Nevertheless, i think the modern meaning of the team science is quite different from what their intentions are with the soul.

But fair enough, point taken.

LoL, i think 'kool and the gang' aint got much time for science. If it aint got heart, rhythm or soul it aint worth much huh?

George,

Glad to hear about the “chink”. It fascinates me to think that each of us has our own unique viewpoint. That’s why I’m open to all the “out there” points of view and just take on board what resonates with me cause then my viewpoint will expand, of course we have to use the discerning faculty of the mind to filter out the crap… if you know what I mean.

You’re right, gotta have heart, rhythm and soul. I love reading kool’s comments… lots of fun with those adjectives and a lot of passion for what he believes in.

Sharbata wrote: "what pray tell is this pure uncorrupted absolute sacrosanct knowledge derived out of this 'Scientific Method'?"

Nothing is pure, uncorrupted, absolute or sacrosanct in science, IMO.

But when I type on this keyboard, letters are printed on the screen. Then I read my words in this forum online.

I can do this thanks to the scientific method.

Most of us can't run our lives without using something created by science.

Do you have "pure uncorrupted absolute sacrosanct knowledge" of anything? Do you know of a system that can give me this sort of knowledge? I would love to hear about it.

The scientific method has not solved everything, but it is getting there.

For the definitive discussion on the faith vs. science debate go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

Wikipedia: the only place where you can get absolute unbiased unchanging truth.

whatever,

Yeah kool's posts are great fun tho at appear short a single substantiated rational thought, tho he'll probably take that as a compliment. i think thats the point he is trying to make, tho i don't agree here, its too wishy washy.

as for science being hypafalutin theoretical chitchat bullshit, lol - put it this way when the day comes that we all observe a guru taxing out on runway 5 on his magic carpet as opposed to a 350ton hunk of metal designed by science; well then Kool's comments will carry more weight on this issue imo.

Seems to me Kool is playing doubt in never-neverland with the pixies and fairies, and needs to come back down to terra firma for this thread.

As for his ‘Truth’, that is a different issue, and I presume it is his subjective experience that he and others have had, which is not open for objective scrutiny, and as such it not a science.

There may well be a soul and mystic tradition(s) to connect with it, but there is no ‘science’ of the soul, simple as that. Provide the objective evidence and it will become a science, since there is none, it is not.

I've noticed that the most proselytising and bad-humoured of the woo-merchants are the very ones who can't seem the grasp the basics of the scientific method, and will under no circumstances entertain a notion that you can embrace both science AND spirituality.

Intellectual 'penis' envy, much? They're embarrassing themselves.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.