Science is our best method of knowing reality

Here's a basic fact: science is well-suited to understanding the nature of reality.

Religion, on the other hand, is a very poor way of knowing reality. So religious belief must bow down to the scientific method if a believer makes a claim about God, soul, spirit, heaven, life after death, or some other supernatural subject. 

Below are excerpts from a book that I've finished reading, "The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes." In a concluding chapter, Donald Hoffman, the author, makes some great points about the primacy of science in separating fact from fiction. 

Because we humans are prone to so many perception and thinking errors, science uses debate, arguments, and reason to distinguish flimsy dogma from solid truth. 

I especially liked how Hoffman demolishes the viewpoint that because some aspect of reality supposedly is beyond the bounds of language and concepts, beliefs about this ineffable something-or-other have to be accepted by other people. Wrong. If something is outside of language, nothing can be said about it.

Including "this is true." Meaning, if someone claims to have experienced the ineffable existence of God, they should say nothing, because there's nothing that can be said about God. 

On the other hand, if this person wants their belief to be adopted by others, then they've entered into the realm of science. Present your arguments for the existence of God. Show us your evidence for God's existence. Engage in debates with people who disagree with you. Refute arguments for the non-existence of God.

Here's the excerpts from the "Community" chapter of The Case Against Reality.

Science, like philosophy and religious practice, is a human endeavor. It is not infallible.

Each of the many attempts to demarcate, from first principles, science from pseuodscience remains, at best, controversial. What science offers is not gold-standard beliefs, but a potent method for winnowing beliefs that derives its power from the way it engages with human nature.

We are a species that argues.

Experiments show, and evolutionary theory explains, that we reason best when we argue for an idea that we already believe, or against the idea of another that we disbelieve. We did not evolve our ability to reason in order to pursue the truth. We evolved it as a tool of social persuasion. 

As a result, our reasoning is plagued with foibles, such as a bias toward information that supports what we already believe. The scientific method exploits all of this.

Each scientist argues for her idea, and against contradictory ideas of other scientists. In this argumentative context, our reason is at its sharpest: each idea garners the best support of reason and evidence its proponents can muster, and each endures the best impalement by reason and evidence its detractors can counter.

Add to this sharpening of reason the demand that ideas be precise -- mathematically precise, when possible -- and the phoenix of science arises from foibles of human nature.

Science is not a theory of reality, but a method of inquiry.

It orchestrates the better angels of our nature to promote reason, precision, productive dialog, and an appeal to evidence. It curbs our proclivity for the vague, deceptive, dogmatic, and imperious. Inquiry into any question that captures the human imagination -- including meaning, purpose, values, beauty, and spirituality -- deserves no less than the full benefit of this orchestration.

Why not deny our best chance to better understand?

...If a system of thought, religious or otherwise, offers a claim that it wants taken seriously, then we should examine it with our best method of inquiry -- the scientific method. That is taking it seriously.

Some topics -- such as God, the good, reality, and consciousness -- have been claimed to transcend the limited scope of human concepts and thus the methods of science. I have no quarrel with someone who claims this and then, being consistent, says no more about these topics.

But if one does say more, then "What can be said at all can be said clearly" and probed with the scientific method.

Can science describe who we are? I think so, in the sense that we can, by the scientific method, evolve and refine theories of who we are. But if science cannot describe who we are, then imprecise natural languages such as English certainly cannot describe who we are.

We have no better means of crafting explanations than the scientific method. An explanation that descended from on high, but could not be tested and debated, would be no explanation at all.

Comments

[Dark_energy]

Come back to me when science can explain the complete universe

Or let's hear science's view of the present state i.e. on 26/27th August 2019 (and present state is what is reality) of Icarus. For those who don't know, Icarus is the name of the farthest star observed. It's just 9billion light years away.

Thanks in advance

Dark energy (another entity science knows a shit about despite making up ~70% of the universe.)

[Vinny]

Ishwar Puri talks about black hole,stars and destruction/formation of universe. I have talked about infinite atomic energy in atoms. Combine atomic energy with Ishwar Puri talks = Busting Atheism completely.

[Stephen Sydney Fine]

Have you studied the works of Bernado Kastrup
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/
Regards
skfarblum

[Jesse]

"Come back to me when science can explain the complete universe"

Come back when religion can provide evidence of anything. "Everything or nothing" doesn't come from a serious place. Science is a method of observation that we use to make predictions. Its not a method of arrogantly claiming to know everything about everything.

And Vinny, Deepak Chopra who is almost certainly more competent than Puri in both science and religious scams already tried pulling the wool over people's eyes by using sciencey sounding terminology. Sam Harris made him look like the idiot that he is.

These gurus only sound smart when they go unchallenged.

[Amar]

Dark_energy, who do you think "discovered" dark energy? The Energizer Bunny?

An easy google search yields:
Dark energy was discovered in 1998 by two international teams that included American astronomers Adam Riess and Saul Perlmutter and Australian astronomer Brian Schmidt.

Scientists and astro-physicists are slowly making headway on these things as new technologies arise.

[Spence Tepper]

Everyone can test their theory about things and should.
Some of that will be hard scientific investigation. Some will be anecdotal and subjective reporting.
They are all legitimate so long as we understand the limits of each. And the limited quality of the information.
All scientific inquiry starts with what is unknown, therefore conjecture is part of science. But science does this responsibly, by following up with a means to test. Sometimes that's a handoff from theoretical to applied or experiment divisions.

Often theoretical scientists claim to have a theory. But in true science all theoreticians can do is hypothesize. When the hypotheses have hard data behind them, then they can try to put that together into a theory. But even a theory isn't considered reality until it is also tested experimentally. Then it becomes law.

Science is a very expensive way to know something and it is no surprise that relatively little of our known reality has been adequately tested.

The human body, animals, plants and all sorts of organisms use testing all the time to learn how to move, speak and function in this world. There is a lot in nature that mimics science, or we could say that science is an artificial abstraction and refinement of a natural process.

The problem is conjecturing about things we have zero experience about with no capacity or interest in testing, yet using scientific claims in our assertions. This isn't scientific. It's using scientific lingo to promote superstition or prejudice. That's called Scientism. It's fake science.

Some people think that lack of evidence is proof that something doesn't exist. But they can't really say either way.

And subjective experiences are real experiences, but they are symbolic and difficult to accurately interpret.

If you can duplicate an event over and over, under a variety of conditions, and further, if others can independently too, then you may likely have real control over the force you are experimenting with and can therefore speak more accurately about that force.

But even today gravity is a challenge to scientists. So an open mind is best in all things.

As we measure more about the universe, old theories are challenged and as more data arrives new refinements are made.

Generally speaking, our accuracy in conjecture is somewhat proportional to our experience with those things.

Zero experience, zero evidence generally yeilds very poor results, which any experience soon demonstrates.

As a rule people make linear conjectures. They take what they know and use it to try to make claims about what they don't know.

Science has proven this to be extremely limited in accuracy. New principles, new forces, new types of matter and energy no one has any idea of before have to be proposed to patch together new data with old theories. It is the new data that often turns over old thinking. And only after extensive evidence are old theories replaced. The whole makes sense, but in science it's a snail's crawl.

[SP]

Jesse,

Religion doesn't need to come back on anything. Beliefs aren't based on proofs/evidence. But science is based on evidenced.

So it's proponents of science who need to come back or else cut the claim that Science is our best way to know reality.

[SP]

It's best to remain quiet on matters beyond your comprehension Amar!!

It's obvious you do not know the difference between a discovery and providing evidence about something...

So won't waste another breath on this with you.

[Georgy Porgy]

Yep I used to kinda believe this but not anymore. Science is the best way to understand the objective rules by which our universe operates.

But understanding science at the top level is a fundamentally abstract intellectual pursuit.

It’s got nothing to say about what you like or what turns you on or what is most important. Reality or ultimate reality is really love - it’s what much of poetry, art, music, books, movies and stories is based on and what humans fundamentally aspire too experience.

Looking down a microscope or solving string theory equations - that’s a pretty poor version of reality in my opinion based on all the direct experiences of reality we are capable of having.

Science is a tool - nothing else.

[Amar]

SP, what part of my statement is"beyond my comprehension"? The fact that I didn't make up some fairy tale story to justify my stance?

Perhaps you need to take your ego down a notch. You know nothing about me, nor I you. You seem to take things very personally. You should go home and work on that. Good luck. I mean it, sincerely.

[Arjuna]

Why are we so keen to find out what reality is- the trouble with sceptics is that they are always searching for answers. What on earth would we do if we found them?

I often wonder if we could tear space a little bit and see what's on the other side

Just thought I'd add my little bit.

[Anon]

Wow it’s a heated exchange between SP and amar. I remember I was on the receiving end of this not too long ago when I questioned the Conclusions on the Sebi findings. Looks like amar you rub people the wrong way. I don’t think it’s what you say it’s the way you say it.
Just my 2 cents

[Amar]

Anon, I hardly call that heated. You might be right, I may not use the proper words, but the intent behind my comments is definitely understood. Hope you're doing well! I'll take your 2 cents also.

People don't like being questioned. If you do, they will minimize you, try to crush you, but they will never really answer the question. There's nothing wrong with believing what you want. Your life, knock yourself out. But don't pretend to imply things as fact when they are not. If you read it in a book, it doesn't make it a fact. If someone says something to you personally or while sitting on a stage, doesn't make it true.

You have the right to believe it, and absorb it. I have the right to question the statement, but not your belief in it.

Again, we're on Brian's Blog. Read the descriptive below it (Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence). It doesn't say "Regurgitating dogma from a book or a person and treating it as truth/fact blog". State it as a personal belief, not as proven truth/fact.

[Fairy]

Morphic Resonance (Me- the Shabd)- The Science of Interconnectedness. (Me- Mahayana Tibetan Buddhism - dependent origination). See Rupert Sheldrake on You Tube - Morphogenesis. See SOTT (Signs of the Times) . The Humans are Waking Up - Maybe. Good reads on the nature of reality.

[Anon]

Amar thanks for asking I am doing great. I don’t agree with your statement that people don’t like to be questioned, I think the people who have the answers are happy to go into detail about thier Understanding. If you question someone with the intent to prove them wrong or to mock their beliefs then you may get
The “people don’t like to be questioned” statement. My own example I have been initiated and follow the sant mat path for a long time now but love to hear what my friends who believe in different religions have to say. I question them many times but in a respectful and understanding way. I think that it comes from the place that even though I live sant mat I know it’s not the only way. Everyone has thier own thought, beliefs and paths. I know this is mine and that’s what matters to me. But I can always learn about others even though I may not agree with them. Live and let live.
And besides truth and fact is very subjective. It maybe the absolute truth for me but not for you.
Many times you question these statements and say the people just repeat like parrots but what makes you absolutely sure that they have not experienced this and that they don’t talk from experience? My mother (who has been meditating for many years and does not even miss one day of full time meditation since I was born, sometimes spends half the day in her room in meditation) tells me the same statements (those rare instances when she does open up and talk). I don’t question Amar. I KNOW she is taking from experience. You may never understand but you need to meet one to know one.

[Amar]

Thanks Anon. I like your comments there. You're partly right. If someone says they have these beliefs and they have those experiences, Spence has written about this, then that's great. More validation for you.

But to say things that are clearly dogmatic and only based on beliefs and reciting books, is not correct. It shouldn't be presented that way. Great if you believe it, but don't present it as if it is fact. That's where I get my back up.

Oh well. Appreciate your comments Anon. Happy for your mother and also happy you bolster your faith along with it.

Cheers!

[Jesse]

"Why are we so keen to find out what reality is- the trouble with sceptics is that they are always searching for answers. What on earth would we do if we found them? "

Good point Arjun. That's why I've made it my mission to be as dumb as I can be. I mean this without sarcasm and without irony. I don't want to know anything. I'll be dead soon enough and wasting time wanting to know seems foolish. But I'm getting to be too stupid to even discern between foolish and wise so I'm probably wrong about that.

[SP]

Amar,

Since you ask.... Well it's a lot wrt to the creation that you do not comprehend.

You are welcome to your uncontrollable urge to comment on anything and everything but in this instance keep it simple - just answer the question I raised ok.

And thanks for confirming via Google search ofcourse, that science knows a shit about an entity which makes up ~70% of what science terms 'observable universe

Btw wasn't it you who said anyone can write books - trust it includes Donald Hoffman.

Finally, two things

(1) it's not about my ego here as much as it's about your audacious displayed ignorance

(2) next time before you go demanding proof from others bear in mind that even science is not about proofs. It's at best about the evidence that allows you to make current best evidence-guesses.until such time someone either places or removes an essential piece and the whole scientific idea comes crashing down.

[Meditator]

Self experiences whether with open or closed eyes are believable.

Closed eyes' ones are private and one can only exclaim therefore but can not reproduce for others. Even though these may be hard ironical facts, not conforming with logics or common sense - impossible to be believed especially in current times with the potential of Spiritual Scientists ( Perfect Saints ) juxtaposed against Physical Scientists, both sides interpreting same Universe differently with a few Intersections.(common conclusions).

Why this?

Now...

Owing. to current Guru's peculiar approach to insignificant Life's matters in particular about matters involving huge monies nowadays.

[Anon]

Amar you wrote
“But to say things that are clearly dogmatic and only based on beliefs and reciting books, is not correct. It shouldn't be presented that way. Great if you believe it, but don't present it as if it is fact. That's where I get my back up.”

Like I mentioned earlier a fact or truth to one may not be the same to another. We could be facing one another and I can say the chair is to my right it’s a fact to me and it’s also the truth but to you it’s not because from where you are standing it’s to your left.
Similarly when someone says something based on what they may have experienced for you to say it’s dogmatic or only based on hearsay isn’t right either. To them it may not be such. It maybe a fact based on experience. To politely tell someone you don’t agree because it’s not truth to you is a good approach.
Great master was once approached by an atheist who questioned everything he said on stage and proclaimed to him that it’s not true. GM simply told “I have not experienced what you have based on my experience this is the truth”

Just goes down to respecting the view each one has and using your own experience to form your own.
Good day brother

[Deepak]

WHenever anybody praises science, I remember my kindergarten teacher who was too much enamored by science. I am not. I find science shallow when it comes to explaining mysteries.

[s*]

That's what I feel also Deepak.
As long as we are always open to 'truth'' also.
But everything has it's limits and experiences are very personal and so not easy to talk about.

About reality...well..not knowing the unseen unknown..is fantastic..
Because it would limit the limitless..

[Georgy Porgy]

Science has answered no big questions:

- consciousness
- love (oxytycin doesn’t cut it)
- what caused the Big Bang (or why is the only acausal phenomena we know of)?
- why something rather than nothing?
- why is that something ordered not random?
- why is that order so finely tuned to allow for life and a universe to even exist?
- can laws of nature change and how?
- how organic (life) from inorganic (matter)?
- are we alone (in a massive universe)?
- if most of the universe is unobservable and the observable bit is mostly unexplainable (dark energy) - does science know anything?
- is ‘supernatural’ something that is beyond natural laws, or something beyond our current understanding of those natural laws?
- if the universe is more complex than we can even imagine (Sagan), and we can imagine a god with supernatural powers, then is the universe even stranger then such a god?
- and why are the greatest sci-fi flicks ever imagined (Star Wars and The Matrix) based on deeply mystical themes?

Wake me up when there are answers.

[Spence Tepper]

Wake up, Georgy, and see the answers. Science is real.

[Georgy Porgy]

Spence
Please just no more sparrow entanglement.

[Arjuna]

Spence . I agree with George . Science has proved nothing. It cannot even prove where or when are the orbs you wrote about in another post... I could go but I wont bore you.

Remember my friend the shadows on that cave which we took as reality.

Scientists are like little kindergarten kids making sandcastles.

Adios

[Chy]

Well
Ishwar would summarize all of this.
He would say when you reach the causal mind region you can then understand and know everything below.
Therefore all the answers would be known by the human seeker...meditator of scientist.
Sooooo just wait until you get to causal levels.until then we get bits and pieces of information...illusion.
Chy

[Chy]

I meant meditator OR scientist.
Not of scientist . sorry.
Chy

[Jesse]

To be a spiritualist and criticize science for not proving enough is one of the richest things I've ever come across in my life.

You're mad that science can't perfectly explain to you the nature of a black hole while your religion can't explain ANYTHING. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

All the arguments against science thus far have been strawmen by those who don't know what science is. It isn't an oracle that provides answers because your emotions impel you to get immediate comforting answers. Whereas religion will provide you an answer without even a hint of evidence, the process of science, when rightly utilized, simply says "I don't know." Religion and religionists are far too arrogant to utter those words.

Science is painfully lacking in answers and will find more and more questions every time an answer is given, and that is the point. Science isn't a blanket mommy gives you to hug.

[Jen]

Spence, you seem to be many people all at the same time. In the other thread about "shut up if you're religious" you talk about entering the second stage and meeting golden orbs in a realm of light but here on this thread you say "Science is real".

Is there any Scientific explanation of these orbs which you say in the other thread "as you pay attention to them, they become human" and "in time they become friends"?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Jen
You asked "Is there any Scientific explanation of these orbs which you say in the other thread "as you pay attention to them, they become human" and "in time they become friends"?

As I wrote above "New principles, new forces, new types of matter and energy no one has any idea of before have to be proposed to patch together new data with old theories. It is the new data that often turns over old thinking. And only after extensive evidence are old theories replaced. The whole makes sense, but in science it's a snail's crawl."

One day we'll know what's behind internal experiences as science pieces it together. But to conjecture about things science can't measure very well is fraught with inaccuracy and linear conjecture.

What will happen one day is that science will be able to uncover these experiences of different regions that are found in so many anecdotal writings. Science will be able to not only explain but duplicate such experiences precisely, or to help us better to reach those stages ourselves, just as exercise physiology helps athletes reach advanced stages of physical development. But I don't think we're there yet. So until then we can share our experiences and each digest them according to our own experience and conditioning.

It's an overreach of false science to claim more, but as I see all this as part of the same creation I'm hopeful science will get to it one day.

I think meditation research is the best so far because it documents changes, such as healing of our own DNA strands, but doesn't over - reach to try to explain what we are experiencing. Today that's just at the conjecture stage.

People try to degrade that experience who have no experience with it, even when the meditation research indicates the brain functions better, with greater accuracy, due to meditating practice. That suggests we are experiencing more of reality, not less.

But even with this physical reality, our experience is symbolic. The brain creates a Tableau for us to see, hear and feel. Reality looks quite different.

For example, most solid matter is empty space. So if we were to see reality as it is, most of what we look at would appear vaguely translucent and we could see many things layered. When we find ourselves seeing that way, that could be fantasy, but it could also be a moment of greater perception. If we can repeat that insight we can test it for ourselves.

Also, we normally see only the particular light waves that we bring into focus. If we could see all the light before us, it would not be just the one plane that is in focus. It would be a huge blurry mass, like the view through a camera when the lens is removed or out of focus.

So our brain greatly filters and limits what we see, and even paints over areas, like blind spots. It probably does something similar with internal stimuli.

[Dungeness]

Whereas religion will provide you an answer without even a hint of evidence, the process of science, when rightly utilized, simply says "I don't know." Religion and religionists are far too arrogant to utter those words.

No, that's blind faith. Mysticism says look with yourself following a
path of mindfulness/meditation. Discard, or at least remain agnostic,
about what you can't verify. The true mystic has no argument at all
with science.

[Georgy Porgy]

“Wrong. If something is outside of language, nothing can be said about it.“

If this statement were true Hinesey, then some of modern sciences greatest advancements might never have been made. Whole swathes of theoretical physics are based on inventing mathematical language to describe hitherto unknown scientific theory. So the natural law exists regardless of whether a scientific theory or language has been invented to describe it.

Just because something is currently inexpressible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Having an inexpressible idea (imagination) doesn’t prevent the best scientists from pursuing it - the challenge is often to create the language to express it. But whether or not the language exists, doesn’t affect the existence of the underlying natural law or not.

A scientific law is at best a rough temporary imperfect expression of a natural law. It often needs to be changed and refined. For gravity, Newton’s language and understanding worked well within the scale of limited human senses, but Einstein’s different language and understanding described this natural law more accurately.

Gravity existed long before the word chosen for it, and imperfect language used to describe it, were ever concocted.

[Jesse]

Dungeness being Dungenes as usual.

There is no consensus from a guild of mediators called "mystics" on anything. A group called "mystics" doesn't exist, and the unaffiliated mass of oportunist money grabbers who call themselves mystics agree on next to nothing.

All the so called mystics, while agreeing on nothing, never fail to offer creation stories, conflicting beliefs about the afterlife, wrong information about diets, health, history, physics and anything else under the sun or in the beyond which they know nothing about.

Prescribing a proprietary meditation technique and offering a few prosaic truisms about God being inside oneself doesn't absolve them of the sin of knowing nothing and speaking big.

Name a mystic. Let's go through some of their works and see if they've answered questions theological, metaphysical or relating to material sciences. I bet they have.

[Dungeness]

All the so called mystics, while agreeing on nothing, never fail to offer creation stories, conflicting beliefs about the afterlife, wrong information about diets, health, history, physics and anything else under the sun or in the beyond which they know nothing about.

They only agree on what they've personally experienced within
repeatedly. The problem is that it must be experienced, it can't
be shoehorned into language. It's ineffable, can't be boxed
into categories, into sizes and shapes, or descriptions, Famously,
mystics can only say "neti, neti, neti"...( not this, not this, not this).

So the only thing left is metaphor, hyperbole, "creation stories", etc.
All that you perceive as "wrong info" can be ignored. Advice on
other topics is a guide at best. Think for yourself. Remain a skeptic.
It's encouraged. Otherwise you have religious ritual, "blind belief".
What matters is a mindful or meditative practice that allows you
to escape from the mind's 24x7 distractibility to explore
consciousness itself.

Name a mystic. Let's go through some of their works and see if they've answered questions theological, metaphysical or relating to material sciences. I bet they have.

Mystics' important "work" is inside. That's the only thing worth
discussing. They offer a experiential path to confirm what they've
discovered there. If you want to debate, critique, or prove them
wrong for their opinions and remarks on other topics, you can. But
their focus is on exploring consciousness itself.

[Georgy Porgy]

What is more important:

(1) learning about imperfect scientific theories, which knowledge most are exposed to even if uninterested in science, and which knowledge holds little if any personal value to you ; or

(2) engaging in a practice, which bring no benefits, but at least offers the kind of eternal experience that dwarfs any fleeting scientific knowledge you might obtain

Do we not owe it to ourselves to ourselves to at least enquire whether there is any truth to (2), which has a far greater upside?

If there was no room for belief or imagination - how dull would reality actually be? It’s not at all surprising to me that humans have the capacity for imagination, art and entertainment - rather just advanced robotic intellectual brain processes.

[Chy]

Well this ORB thing brings to my mind there was a metaphysical group around 15 years ago or so that was teaching that these orbs are from the angelic realm. They taught that these are the various angels and guardian angels we have here on earth....
Now at one point m. Charan said there are angels.....but later and with Ishwar that theory of any sort of guides and teachers for us personally was said is nonexistent. That we only have the shabd.
Not that angels dont exist but they all have nothing to do with helping us as satsangiis.
I am not sure if I go along with that...ooops bad girl not agreeing blindly with the RS stuff..
Chy

[SP]

These forms what ever you call them - angels, orbs etc - can't one say they are just life forms? One of the 8.4million species?

What use are these then to a satsangi in the inner upward journey?

[Jesse]

"They only agree on what they've personally experienced within"

Such as things like food loses all nutrients within 3 hours because some rishi said so? I've heard numerous "mystics" say this.

Try again.

[SP]

Jesse,

I'll tell you the most important bit that mystics agree on and that is

There is only One God

[Mike England]

SP
You make the most outrages statements.
You demand absolute proof that ghosts are real, then childishly criticise me for providing it.
And now you claim there is only one god, with no proof whatsoever.

[Georgy Porgy]

Spence

I think you are confused.
Our reality is not at the atomic level.
You are going to bang you toe on a rock regardless of whether or not you can see that most of it is made up of empty space.

[Jesse]

"I'll tell you the most important bit that mystics agree on and that is

There is only One God"

Is that even true? Is there unanimous consensus among anyone who calls themselves or is called a mystic that there is only one god?

You're telling me that animists in the Cambodian jungles and Amazonian shamans are all strict monotheists?

I often wonder when I read online comments if the author of the comment accidentally ingested powerful sedatives.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Georgy
Even at our level,most of what you see is empty space. It's held together by a field with nodes called particles. You don't feel your toe. Your brain receives a message, very slowly.

But do go on dreaming. The mind is suited to it.

[Georgy Porgy]

Spence
You’re away with the fairies again.
The world of objects exists regardless of whether you can perceive them or not.
You don’t see the rock, yet bang your toe, nerve receptors send a signal to your pip telling you which part of your body is poked.

Nothing to do with fields and particles.

[SP]

Jesse,

If you find differing views on the singularity of God please do share it. I have no qualms in being corrected.

[SP]

Mike,

Do you even understand English? Only your misfired brain interprets - my saying what mystics agree on ie there is one God as I claiming that there is only One God with no whatsoever proof!!!!

To be continued......

[Hariram]

New mapping research revealed the additional land masses a couple years ago, prompting "The Inquirer" to note, "The change is a reminder of how knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is a matter of faith...It’s good for our critical thinking to be reminded of the contingency of 'expert knowledge.'"

From "100 Geography Facts You Probably Never Knew | Far & Wide" https://www.farandwide.com/s/amazing-geography-facts

[Mike England]

SP
Your childish rants are unnecessary.
Please post serious and well thought comments in future.

For example:
What actual mystics agree that there is only one god. If that is what you really meant.

[Jesse]

I just said the animism of shamans in southeast Asia, SP. They go into ecstatic mystic trances not to come into union with the one god. They do it to communicate with spirits and a plurality of gods and beings.

[Jesse]

"The change is a reminder of how knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is a matter of faith.."

No it's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of using a process and all available data. What is known is always subject to change. That's a feature, not a bug of science and something that distinguishes it from unchanging faith in unchanging religious texts.

No matter how much mankind knows, the Bible, Gita, Guru Granth etc can never change. They're frozen in time and no matter what new things are discovered they remain unchanged, right or wrong. Often wrong.

When some Hindu philosopher 3000 years ago writes some wrong dates about earth's creation, you're stuck with that number forever. That's faith. Being wrong and stuck.

[Hariram]

prompting "The Inquirer" to note, "The change is a reminder of how knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is a matter of faith...It’s good for our critical thinking to be reminded of the contingency of 'expert knowledge.'"

These are not my words they're from 'The Inquirer' who note that science is, as most theories are, faith based.

You base it on faith that Darwin is 100% accurate in development of a theory that you're an advanced chimpanzee, until such time as someone may come along and set that theory on it's head and inform you otherwise.

Until about 30 or 40 years ago nobody quite knew fundamentally how the universe came into being, then some highly intelligent advanced chimpanzees using highly advanced quantum mathematics developed the theory that it was an infinitesimal spark as yet inconceivable to human consciousness to determine how or why or from what source it exploded into a universe which is still expanding.

Now modern theoretical physics are questioning whether there aren't multiverses, universes within universes, their quantum mathematics is leading them into further questions as to whether the 'big bang' isn't just one bang within a bigger bang.

So 'science' is basically the new religion, one faith based inconclusive assumption after the other.

[Jesse]

"You base it on faith that Darwin is 100% accurate in development of a theory that you're an advanced chimpanzee"

No, you don't. Darwin's theory of evolution is constantly being challenged and especially the theory of natural selection. You don't know what you're talking about.

The rest of what you said is that scientists are inquiring into the nature of elements of and the universe itself. They come up with theories and hypotheses which are tested. Some seem plausible until someone comes up with better explanations or new data is found. Which means what? That they change when they know more.

Religion does not change no matter how much new data we have.

You have no business expressing opinions publicly. You're not even beginning to think about what you're saying. Stop opining forever and go do meditation. I'm embarrassed that I'm communicating with you.

[Hariram]

So stfu if you think you're so intelligent wtf you opining on stuff you know nothing about.
Fact is science is hardly an authority on reality any more than relying on intuitive or ancient religious anecdotes.
Some mystics told them there are universes within universes long before they had telescopes or mathematics to start trying to figure it out.

[Hariram]

Darwins theory of evolution and natural selection is pretty much enshrined in 'scientific' journals and institutions as almost sacrosanct gospel of human origin. It will probably remain sacrosanct until they discover it might be the biggest red herring in the order of evolving life forms yet.

Same with Einsteins theory of relativity or the Big Bang bonanza theory of universal birth trajectory, all subject to human incapacity to recognize reality for what it fundamentally is.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Jesse
You wrote
"Religion does not change no matter how much new data we have."
A case can be made, with substantial evidence, that this statement is false. And the case could be made with much evidence for this statement, "Religion evolves to suit the times" .

The Christianity of today bears little resemblance to that of medieval times, or that of the early centuries after the life of Christ. Like the evolution of a biological organism, systems of belief also adapt, develop or become extinct molded by the social reality they exist in.

They are, in a way, social creatures that have survived on the basis of adaptation, like ancient myths that have evolved into superhero stories and films. All social systems of belief, even fictional, rely upon a set of social beliefs that falsely appear persistent but are actually morphing all the time.

What we accept today as common universal truths about decency and right and wrong are far from their ancestors even a generation ago.

That this happens in New social systems is well known. That ancient systems which we think haven't changed were in fact completely different not long ago is an invisible change to the fabric of our social reality that can be both inspiring and pernicious.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Georgy
You wrote
"You don’t see the rock, yet bang your toe, nerve receptors send a signal to your pip telling you which part of your body is poked."

That is the reality our perceptual system tells us about. But its accuracy is very limited.

It may not matter to you that those signals are just data the brain interprets as pain. Oulr that it only becomes coded as pain later. Or that the fact the foot can no longer move forward is interpreted as an object.

These interpretations by the brain serve a basic survival function. But reality is far more, and far different from the crayon drawing or brain creates so that our physical body can move and function here.

To claim a deeper understanding is sub atomic or fairy fantasy is not based on anything. These are just statements without basis.

[Jesse]

"The Christianity of today bears little resemblance to that of medieval times, or that of the early centuries after the life of Christ."

They literally haven't updated the holy book for 1800 years. The book that describes the origins of humanity, earth, God and everything else is completely static and unchanging.

The theology of what you read in the first few ecumenical councils and the church fathers writings have made their way even into non denominational churches. The dogmas of Catholics, Protestants(who call it something else) and Orthodox who make up the vast majority of Christianity are only subtly different in semantic ways for the most part.

Part of all Christian teachings is precisely that nothing pertaining to the teachings of god via his revelations in scripture ever changes.

Maybe today they livestream the liturgy on YouTube and play a guitar. Not much of a change.

What are you even talking about?

[Jesse]

Hariram, one of the few blogs I read anymore is of a man who is challenging the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The fact that people are using the word science has nothing to do with what science is. People say yoga is a science, yet that is like saying time is a milk. It's not even a comprehensible statement.

Man's failure to properly apply scientific standards, which is what you're talking about, and what science is are not even the same topic.

[Jesse]

"Some mystics told them there are universes within universes long before they had telescopes or mathematics to start trying to figure it out."

A lot of mystics and non mystics alike have said a lot of things. 99.9999% of them contradict themselves and each other. Welcome to history.

You still don't get what science is. That's where the sadness starts, but I can't help you.

[Georgy Porgy]

Spence
“These interpretations by the brain serve a basic survival function.”

But that is the point - if the brain misinterpreted reality, or was inaccurate, you wouldn’t live long. Instead the brain is perfectly evolved to ensure that we can operate best at the level of reality we are at.

At the subatomic level many strange and wonderful things might happen, but that’s not our level of reality. The subatomic level of reality is a completely different plane of existence, which gets even stranger to the point of being unfathomable to us at the quantum level. The quantum level is often the level where new-age bullshit is envoked cause no one really knows what happening.

We have virtually no familiarity or experience with this level of reality. It all comes from indirect knowledge, ie what you have read in books. And the smaller we go, the less we know. They just discovered the Higgs. Quantum entanglement and quantum physics generally is still a mystery even though we have some maths that seems to work well.

[SP]

Jesse,

You said

No matter how much mankind knows, the Bible, Gita, Guru Granth etc can never change. They're frozen in time and no matter what new things are discovered they remain unchanged, right or wrong. Often wrong.

You are right that contents of religious texts have not changed.

In your view, what are some of the changes that ought to be made to the core / fundamental teachings of some major religions basis discoveries by science and/or improvements to mankind's knowledge?

And I hope the age of the earth or universe isn't something you categorise as core.

Thanks in advance for your valuable inputs on this one.

[SP]

Sant mat days are numbered.

If all goes as planned, in just 27 years science will bust one of the cornerstones of santmat - death is inevitable. All that is born, dies.

https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/30425/death-will-be-optional-and-ageing-curable-by-2045-say-genetic-engineers

José Luis Cordeiro and Cambridge (UK) mathematician David Wood, founders of the operating system 'Symbian', have published The Death of Death and say immortality is a real and scientific possibility that could come much earlier than originally thought.

@Jesse, will the religious texts be rewritten or the zealots find a justification not to? Something like Kalyug is transitioning to Satyug when per sant mat human life is 100,000 years

[Jesse]

SP, yes, the earth and universe are "core" if so called enlightened, all seeing ,prophets, masters and gurus talked about those issues, which they did and do frequently.

Going back to Dungeness who said that mystics tell us only to seek the truth and talk only about inner truths. Any instance you find of a mystic who during his deep realization of oneness or god mentioning something about our world that is wrong, is also evidence that their inner experiences were "wrong."

But I don't think religions should change their views too much. I think they should vie for power openly as they did in the past and attempt to force their worldview onto others. That's what mankind is about. Seeking power. Truth is a mirage and 99% of what we call "science" is club on a mission to get more grant money and fame. Thus the reason so much of the "science" we see can't be reproduced any better than a mystic leaving the body can. We don't need rational answers, we need social order, and religion provides order better than the pop cultural phenomenon commonly referred to as science.

About your article on death, I always think of someone creating a near indestructible apparatus that prolongs human life to immeasurable lengths, and this apparatus enabling the full human sensory experience. Then one day after everyone has purchased these immortality devices, a massive meteor crushes the earth into little pieces, and these people get thrown through the atmosphere, and out floating in space for years as they freeze in ways more painful than can be imagined, are pelted by space rocks in the face, and eventually land in the sun only to be burned for millions of years in excruciating agony.

Maybe hell was just a myth before, but through the magic and wonders of SCIENCE!!! we can make it real.

Just imagine being such a psychopath that you'd want to live forever. Yikes.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Georgy
I agree with what you wrote, with the only qualifier that we don't fully know what the brain has been developed to do. But whatever that is, the mechanisms to do it were developed long ago.

[Georgy Porgy]

Everything dies. Entropy.

Unless you found a way to change perhaps the most fundamental natural law of the universe - which I can assure you no human being will never do.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Jesse
You wrote
"Part of all Christian teachings is precisely that nothing pertaining to the teachings of god via his revelations in scripture ever changes."

Here is a great example of what was taught in the early centuries of Christianity by one of its fathers. I challenge you to find any modern day Christian teachings that echo this sentiment. You will find the exact opposite.

"You have, then, God's promise; you have His love: become partaker of His grace. And do not suppose the song of salvation to be new, as a vessel or a house is new. For "before the morning star it was;" 'and "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Error seems old, but truth seems a new thing."
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen

Today Christians teach that salvation did not exist before Jesus. But Clement of Alexandria taught that the 'song of salvation' , the 'Word' , has always been present.

You are welcome to site any modern Christian teachings that support what Clement of Alexandra wrote above, to support your claim.

[Jesse]

"Today Christians teach that salvation did not exist before Jesus"

You obviously are not aware of the Orthodox Church. I spent a good part of 2017 and 2018 in a catechism and generally going to churches to bother priests about questions exactly like this. What you're saying is absolutely wrong and my more limited time spent with Catholics makes me think that they're not in disagreement with Clement necessarily either. Alexandrian theology is not dead by any means.

If I remember correctly you're from a Baptist background which would be why you think what you do. I don't even consider Baptists to be a church. More of a bibliolatrous offshoot.

The word escapes me at the moment but in the church there are dogmatic beliefs that are essentially set in stone, and some theological concepts that are open to interpretation. What you describe might be in the latter category. But the concepts in these categories essentially have remained the same as well.

[Jesse]

And let me add that the basis of all Christianity is the revealed scriptures. They supersede your pastor, the fathers of the church and everything else. So assuming even the most dramatic reinterpretation of the Bible, it still comes from the same source and nothing can be added to it and nothing has been added to it in thousands of years.

You don't find Christians who reference the Qur'an or the Satanic Bible. And if Christian apologists speak of nature or science it's to bolster the status of the biblical "truths." There's no concept of editing the Bible when new info arises.

Destroying the past is a crucial part of discovery. If new evidence makes the big bang look like an impossible theory, we can take Babas advice and burn the books. What new info would allow for the destruction of any holy book? Nothing.

[Georgy Porgy]

Abrahamic religions - same BS dogma and scripture, just a different set of books and scrolls - that really is a total waste of time.

Nope if there’s any truth to religions, it’s at the perennial core - silent personal contemplation or mediation where certain states of rapture might be experienced.

But is this experience or union with the shabd, Tao, God etc objective (when we still the mind) or subjective (created by the mind)?

Used to think almost certainly the latter, but now think might be wrong - I think there is something underlying all nature. And that we see the world all back to front , just like the mystics say.

[Dungeness]

Going back to Dungeness who said that mystics tell us only to seek the truth and talk only about inner truths. Any instance you find of a mystic who during his deep realization of oneness or god mentioning something about our world that is wrong, is also evidence that their inner experiences were "wrong."

That's accurate. On external matters, the mystic is as fallible as anyone
else. As discussed on a CofC thread a ways back, Ishwar Puri in a YouTube
talk related some mis-information he had been given about Faqir Chand.
On what's seen within, however, the true mystic relates only what he/she has
repeatedly experienced.

Mystic language may be metaphoric though because what's experienced
in deep concentration defies description, is ineffable, elusive, can't be herded
into tidy mental constructs. It's like describing ice cream to one who's never
tasted sweets. So complaints about "mystic contradictions" need to be viewed
through a different lens.

By the way, Ishwar Puri tells of attending Harvard on fellowship in the 60's.
Leary and Alpert, of LSD notoriety, opined his inner experiences were all auto-
suggestion. Ishwar agreed they could be right but added "I'm happy 24x7 and
you're taking anti-depressants".

In the end, what does it matter what the "truth" is about mystics or whose
experiences are "wrong". Who's da "True One" and who's da Con Man".
Who gives a rip. You'll just be sucked down a rabbit hole into hell.
Find a path inside such as mindfulness that's reliable, legal, non-harmful,
and "makes your day". You won't even have to find a villain to shoot.

[Jesse]

"On external matters, the mystic is as fallible as anyone
else."

Internal matters too, obviously. That's a core tenet of RS. That without a "perfect" guru one will be even further led astray in the inner worlds than in the outer ones. Same goes for the Tibetan book of the dead which s full of warnings,equally applicble to the mystic and non mystic alike, of all the bad decisions one can make on the "inside."

The descriptions of the inner worlds according to various traditions are completely different. The goals are completely different ranging from extinguishing the self, to attaining heaven, to "merging" with gods and everything in between, much of it being irreconcilable between the traditions.

If mystics can't agree on the basic concept of whether or not there's a god at all, what good are they,and what do they agree on? Very little.

[Dungeness]

Internal matters too, obviously. That's a core tenet of RS. That without a "perfect" guru one will be even further led astray in the inner worlds than in the outer ones.

That's accurate but I think mystics affirm that spirituality will always
be incremental. Nor are seekers powerless sheep. If led astray,
they'll gradually grow dissatisfied with that path and opt for a
different shepherd or begin looking for another approach .

If mystics can't agree on the basic concept of whether or not there's a god at all, what good are they,and what do they agree on? Very little.

It doesn't really matter. The seeker will choose the path that resonates
most with what they're really seeking. Their own inner core strength will
draw them to that level.

So there's no "one true path". A modern mystic has said "What is the right
path? Any path that tells you to look inside, not outside, for truth."