Rules for Reality -- which religious believers ignore

I'm a proud member of the reality-based community. This is a big reason why I no longer believe in God or supernatural phenomena. 

It'd be nice if these things actually existed. But "nice" is irrelevant when it comes to learning the truth about reality. Reality is what it is, not what individuals want it to be.

When I learned about Jonathan Rauch's book, "The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth," the title alone made me want to buy it.

I've only read two of the eight chapters, but I skipped ahead and read the passages that I've shared below. I like these Rules for Reality. They fit with my personal philosophy, though naturally Rauch states them more clearly than I'd be capable of.

The first sentence below echoes something I say often in my blog posts. 

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, even if it isn't true. But if you want other people to accept your belief, then you need to submit that belief to the reality-based community for examination and criticism. Meaning, to people who embrace truth-seeking.

Religious believers, mystics, and such typically aren't willing to do this. They expect others to take their statements about reality seriously, even though they don't comply with the Rules for Reality below.

Rules for Reality

Say you believe something (X) to be true, and you believe that its acceptance as true by others is important or at least warranted.

X might be that the earth revolves around the sun, that God is a trinity, that an embryo is a human being, that human activity is causing climate change, that vaccination saves lives, that Joe Biden was lawfully elected president, or some other consequential proposition.

The specific proposition does not matter. What does matter is that the only way to validate it is to submit it to the reality-based community. 

Otherwise, you could win dominance for your proposition by, say, brute force, threatening and jailing and torturing and killing those who see things differently -- as we have seen, a standard method down through history.

Or you and your like-minded friends could go off and talk only to each other, in which case you would have founded a cult -- which is lawful but socially divisive and epistemically worthless.

Or you could engage in a social-media campaign to shame and intimidate those who disagree with you -- a very common method these days, but one which stifles debate and throttles knowledge (and harms a lot of people).

What the reality-based community does is something else again. In my book Kindly Inquisitors, I argue that liberal science's distinctive qualities derive from two core rules, and that any public conversation which obeys those two rules will display the distinguishing characteristics of liberal science. The rules are:

The fallibilist rule: No one gets the final say. You may claim that a statement is established as knowledge only if it can be debunked, in principle, and 0nly insofar as it withstands attempts to debunk it.

That is, you are entitled to claim a statement is objectively true only insofar as it is both checkable and has stood up to checking, and not otherwise. 

In practice, of course, determining whether a particular statement stands up to checking is sometimes hard, and we have to argue about it.

But what counts is the way the rule directs us to behave: you must assume your own and everyone else's fallibility and you must hunt for your own and others' errors, even if you are confident that you are right. 

Otherwise, you are not reality-based.

The empirical rule: No one has personal authority. You may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge only insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker, and regardless of the source of the statement.

Whatever you do to check a proposition must be something that anyone can do, at least in principle, and get the same result. Also, no one proposing a hypothesis gets a free pass simply because of who she is or what group she belongs to.

Who you are does not count; the rules apply to everybody and persons are interchangeable. If your method is valid only for you or your affinity group or people who believe as you do, then you are not reality-based.

Comments

[Sonia]

Myth busters.

Ahh… but we’re not all the same. Perception isn’t knowledge. Our personal history, education and culture will shape our perceptions. Perception and “faith” will lead you to interpret data in the way that suits your values and beliefs. Scientists don’t always agree with each other. Politicians don’t always agree with each other. Philosophers certainly don’t always agree with each other.

The need to be right and the need to feel in control of the world around you will drive you to find “facts” that support your world views.

[Appreciative Reader]

Great topic, great post. I look forward to your subsequent post/s on this book as well.

There's one nuance I wanted to comment on, as far as this part : "Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, even if it isn't true. But if you want other people to accept your belief, then you need to submit that belief to the reality-based community for examination and criticism. Meaning, to people who embrace truth-seeking."

I'm not sure there's any need to differentiate between claims made to others, and claims to oneself. That is, it is just as important to abide by the rules of rationality (or the "rules of reality") even if one makes a claim only to oneself, and not to others. In other words, as I see it, whether you're making a claim to others or not, whether others are involved or not, is probably not the issue; the issue instead is whether one cares to be rational or not.

If I believe something, and do not speak of that belief to anyone else, even then, it makes sense to be rational. What I mean to say is, the rules of rationality don't become any less important just because one isn't speaking about one's beliefs to anyone else.

To put it differently: I don't think it necessarily becomes any more important to abide by the rules of rationality just because one is speaking to others. "Entitlement" doesn't really enter into it, as I see it. Because entitlement speaks to legality --- or at least, if not to de facto legality, then to the ideal, the principle, behind legality --- and that, as I see it, is predicated on whether there is coercion involved, and use of public funds. So that just as one is "entitled" to hold to irrational beliefs oneself as long as one doesn't impinge on others' freedoms, similarly, one is entirely "entitled" to communicate and propagate one's beliefs to others, even if those beliefs are irrational, as long as there is no coercion involved, and as long as there is no outright fraud, and as long as no public funds are appropriated in the process.

Which is not, at all, to make a case for propagating irrational beliefs, let me make fully clear, but to emphasize that the rules of rationality/reality apply equally forcefully even when one keeps one's beliefs to oneself. One may be "entitled" to behave irrationally, as long as one doesn't incommode others, but in as much as rationality is important, it is equally as important to apply it even to one's own private beliefs as well.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Perception and “faith” will lead you to interpret data in the way that suits your values and beliefs. ... The need to be right and the need to feel in control of the world around you will drive you to find “facts” that support your world views."

.......Sonia, scientists are human, and no doubt just as fallible at a personal level as anyone else. So that, sure, individual scientists might end up behaving disingenuously, or end up favoring their own biases. Agreed.

However, that is a shortcoming of the human condition, and does not speak to the scientific method as such. In fact, I'd say that the scientific method does a great job in helping us root out precisely this kind of inherent bias in our own thinking, and arrive at objective results and conclusions that are not lopsided towards our own pet predilections and aversions and biases.

What I'm saying is, while the kind of biases you point out are fact, and scientists are as susceptible to them as anyone else, but it is when you adhere to the scientific method that you are best able to mitigate the effects of these biases. That's kind of the whole point of the scientific method, as I understand it.

[um]

@ A.R.

>> If I believe something, and do not speak of that belief to anyone else, even then, it makes sense to be rational<<

There are many ways to cover a distance ... train, car, plane, horseback, running and ... even ... hopscotch

Rational thinking is like hopscotch

What you write sounds like the missionaries that were convinced that no indigenous people was entitled to their false believes as it would harm them and all those with whom they came into contact with.

A.R. .... in its wake came the inquisition

[Cardinal Ximinez]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Hmf... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surpr...

[Spence Tepper]

A lot of scientists hold deeply religious views. That isn't an argument for religion. It is simply stating that both science and belief in God can find their place in the same people.

Science and belief in God can be entirely compatible.

[Appreciative Reader]

No, um, I'm not saying irrational beliefs should be put to the sword, or anything like that!

I'm saying that, in as much as rationality is important, it is equally important to be rational in one's own private thoughts, as it is important to be rational in the thoughts one propagates to others.

I doubt that is what the Jonathan Rauch meant to convey, but that sentiment, that I'd quoted in my original comment, if taken in isolation, might convey the impression that rationality is less important as far as one's private beliefs, and that is what I'd wanted to comment on. Bringing in "entitlement" doesn't quite address the issue, in my view, and like I'd spelt out there.

.

Yes, I do believe that everyone would benefit from behaving rationally. For instance, if someone is ill, they'd be far better off turning to "reality-based" medical science rather than some indigenous voodoo. Because if there is anything of worth in that indigenous voodoo, as there well might be, then that would ideally be distilled and incorporated into rational medical science.

But while I do think that rationality is the better approach for everyone, not for one minute am I suggesting coercing people to abide by rationality. I'm not sure where you saw that nuance expressed in my comment. Certainly that isn't something I believe, and most assuredly that isn't what I wanted to convey.

[Dungeness]

@ "Religious believers, mystics, and such typically aren't willing to do this. They expect others to take their statements about reality seriously,"

That conflates "religious believers" with most mystics. The former often
subscribe to unquestioning belief while the latter tend to condition belief
on verification through personal experience within consciousness itself.
Genuine mystics testify to what they've themselves have experienced
and simply invite others to test their assertions.

[um]

@ A.R

The saying says: It is the tone that makes the music.

In general I follow your arguments as I would listening to a teacher in college but now and then all of an sudden I hear the high pitch of the chalk on the black board.

I agree that if rationality is important to one, it is as important to what is said as to what one thinks in private and not only demand it from others.

Rationality is just "A" way for handling facts of life but not for all facts and in the same measure.

There are facts that can be put into numbers, can be measured and others that can not.

There are studies that show that the effectiveness of medical drugs depends on a part on PLACEBO ....the BELIEVE that it works.

[Appreciative Reader]

" It is the tone that makes the music. ...
...all of an sudden I hear the high pitch of the chalk on the black board."

.......Ha ha ha, very well put!

That is, I'd like to assure you there was no such tonality in my thoughts, and I don't quite see, on re-reading my comment, where such apparent tonality may have seeped out into my expression. But absolutely, I understand perfectly what you mean to convey. Like I said, very well put!

.

"There are studies that show that the effectiveness of medical drugs depends on a part on PLACEBO ....the BELIEVE that it works."

.......Actually, two ways to look at that.

On the one hand, it is science that has identified the placebo and the nocebo effects. And it is science that filters out these effects when evaluating interventions.

On the other hand, I do agree with you, for some reason, and as far as my own limited knowledge, there are no concerted efforts led by science to deliberately channel the placebo effect. Absolutely, I agree with you there. In the real world, as far as I know, the placebo effect is seen only as something to be filtered out, rather than something to be utilized.

On the gripping hand, though, there is no reason, at least in principle, why the above lack should not be overcome. I expect there are commercial reasons why this hasn't already happened. But in principle at least, the channeling of the placebo effect is again almost certainly is best done by "reality-based" means.

[um]

@ A.R
>> ..... as far as I know, the placebo effect is seen only as something to be filtered out, rather than something to be utilized.<<

Well, AR if that is what you think, you might need to search the internet to find some studies that explain where and how placebo is used.

Placebo, hypnosis and suggestion are all offshoots of "believe" and they are used in marketing, psychotherapy, public relations and the media.

Again, there are many things that are better measured, for our welfare but other things, as important to us human beings as the tangible things, can not be measured at all.

Acoustics in a hall can be measured and adapted, as well as many things related to tone .... but listening to a life performance is something else than the recorded version of the same, etc.

You see if you are in a seminar or in auditorium of an university, there is a person presenting something to the audience. Now be aware that it matters who are sitting in the audience having an effect on that person. If a video is made of that seminar, some information that was there in the live situation as gone; information that cannot be measured. If that video tape is stripped from its visual part again information is lost that cannot be measured. If in the next step the audio tape is written out, more information is lost and finally if that transcript is translate in another language even more information is lost. Now how do you think you can reproduce the original live seminar by reading such an translation?!

[um]

@ AR

Suppose you are married or have a girlfriend and see says in a given mood that she loves you dearly. It can be recorded, said by a robot etc etc....would that be the same to you?

[Appreciative Reader]

I don't disagree, um.

When I said placebo effects are filtered out by science, I meant that, as a matter of course, when clinical trials are carried out for medical interventions, including pharmacological products, they carry out double-blind trials, and explicitly try to filter out the placebo effect in evaluating some particular formulation or some particular intervention. If some product shows an x% improvement, then usually care is taken to see what portion of that owes to placebo effects arising out of the very act of actually taking some medicine, any medicine. Say that is identified as y%, then the efficacy of the medication is taken x% - y%.

-------

Actually I was agreeing with you, in part, over there.

Common sense would suggest that while the above is a necessary part of evaluating the efficacy of interventions, nevertheless, once you've identified a y% placebo, then, rather than using it only to filter out the results of interventions, it might make sense to actually study the placebo effect itself, to see how it might be deliberately generated, and if it might be enhanced. Because often the efficacy of individual medical formulations are comparable to, or at times less than, the placebo effect! And yet, to the best of my (limited) knowledge, such deliberate channeling of the placebo effect is not done.

Probably that owes to commercialization of research. And sure, that is a shortcoming of pharmaceutical research and general medical research.

But my broader point was, that shortcoming is not one that cannot be overcome. And surely the best way to do that, the best way to channelize the placebo effect, once there is that will, is again via reality-based methods? AKA science? That was the point I was trying to make.

[Appreciative Reader]

"@ AR

Suppose you are married or have a girlfriend and see says in a given mood that she loves you dearly. It can be recorded, said by a robot etc etc....would that be the same to you?"

No, of course not.

But I'm not sure where you're going with this. Can you elaborate?

[um]

@ Ar

>>But I'm not sure where you're going with this. Can you elaborate?https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

[Appreciative Reader]

Interesting. So clearly there are studies directly into the nature of the placebo effect, and specifically into how it might be channeled in specific instances.

Although at the end of the day it is "reality-based" studies, rooted firmly in rationality, that have stepped in to tell us what we know about the placebo effect, both in general and also in respect to specific cases, isn't it?

(I ask not to rub home the matter, but because it isn't clear to me what larger point you actually wanted to make by bringing up the placebo effect. Would you like to elaborate?)

[um]

@AR

Things that can be measured should be measured
Other things, as valuable to humanity as the measured things, can never be measured or
rationalized.

At this moment in time, believe is what is needed.

If you believe, you start searching to find all there is to be found and known about the unmeasurable things that are part of human life.

I gave you an example of the lost of information in steps and the impossibility to recreate the original event without that information.

If you do not want to leave the rational castle you are living in, nobody can help you and you have to spend your days in that prison.

But .. that is up to you ... I cannot bring that life outside your castle inside and if I could I certainly would refrain from it.

[um]

@ AR

Every researcher, every scientist, in fact all human beings BELIEVE that the things they are up to do, will bring them what they are after.

If a scientist would NOT believe that his scientific and rational wpproach would help him to come to an conclusion he would not spend a minute in his lab.

He would drink coffee or go out fishing.

Believe is the motor

[um]

@AR

BELIEVING is the carrot that makes the donkey move
hahaha
and tit can even made a hungry donkey walk through a field of carrots without noticing them bein obsessed and focused on the carrot before his nose in the hand of the rider

[um]

@AR

2472 reactions on believe
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/?s=believe
Have some coffee and delve in it.

[Appreciative Reader]

Not to beat this to death, um, but I'm afraid I still don't understand.

I agree, literal nihilism is a dead-end. Belief per se is entirely necessary to functioning. Agreed.

But the point is to base that belief on rationality, right? Because what is the alternative? The alternative is random, ad hoc, gut-based and unexamined beliefs.

You either have random beliefs that you chance on and don't examine, or you have beliefs that you do examine and accept or reject basis that examination. And basing your acceptance of beliefs on reason, that is all rationality is.

We're clearly disagreeing on something, but I'm not clear what that something is we're disagreeing about.

[um]

@ AR

Do read Williams "will to believe" ... he describes the different forms.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm

>>But the point is to base that belief on rationality, right?<<

That depends on what your concept of rationality is and the object of an believe.

How is friendship related to rationality, fear, and the many other moods that move people?

AR The answers you seek are to be found by you, nobody on the surface of this earth can give you these answers.

You are walking the path of rationality, that is your choice, you wil see where it brings you and at what cost.

[Appreciative Reader]

Read through the preface of that book. Seems interesting, even if perhaps a bit outdated (kind of a last-century subject, that may be kind of passe at this point). But I mustn't opine without first having fully read what he's saying. Bookmarked.

.

But I'm still not sure what it is we seem to be disagreeing on.

Are you saying there are some areas where rationality is not a good guide? And if not rationality, then what else is there that might best guide one?

Some specificity, some actual example, might help clarify your answer to those two questions.

[um]

@ AR

That is for you to find out AR.
If you believe that there are other guides, search for them
If not continue your path of rationality.

[Appreciative Reader]

I'm afraid I can't, myself, think of a single concrete instance where rationality might not apply. Even abstract things like, to touch on what you'd said before this, friendship. Friendship, love, even wholly abstract things like that will still be best guided by rationality, as far as I can see.

See, no matter the field, no matter the arena, no matter the subject, the moment you suggest that rationality may not be a good guide, the question immediately arises: Well then, what guide does one rely on then, in place of rationality?

To recall an earlier discussion that I'd had with Dungeness, that you may or may not have read, I do agree that there might come a point when you might temporarily lay aside your rational side. But that is only a temporary measure, because we humans can only do one thing at a time, especially when total absorption is called for. I have no problem accepting that it might be necessarily to leave aside our analytical functions for such time as we're absorbed in some other function. If that is what you're alluding to then we don't disagree. But I don't think such a course is in any way antithetical to rationality. On the contrary, that itself would be part of a rational framework.

But again, not to beat this to death. I get the impression that you don't wish to be drawn further into this. In which case I'm happy to drop this for now.

[um]

@ Ar

In Aikido one comes to understand that one's power, influence etc ends where a vertical and horizontal circle can be describe.

:-))

[Spence Tepper]

Thalidomide seemed perfectly rational, according to science, until science learned it wasn't.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21507989/

So rational thinking can only take you so far. Because it is based on known information, but is hopelessly adrift in matters of what is not yet known.

[Appreciative Reader]

Rationality isn't inerrant. Nothing is. But rationality, and specifically science, admits of self-correction. Which is a good thing.

Surely that's so obvious as to hardly need spelling out, Spence? Or is there some other nuance to your argument that I'm missing?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Science isn't inerrant, and neither is spirituality. Both can be pursued with an investigative and open approach.

To set them as antagonistic is a false construction.

[Spence Tepper]

My example of Thalidomide was to point out that science can be very prejudiced in considering possibilities outside of established results, when doing so would be personally costly, even to the point of dismissing hard data until it is so strong it can't be denied. And by that time thousands of lives have been harmed.science only works with an open mind willing to acknowldge information outside of one's chosen theory.

And as to spirituality, mystic literature is filled with accounts of investigation, noting results and making course corrections.

The logic of the mystic exceeds that of the anti-theist, because the mystic is still investigating, while the anti - theist has closed the door on a finite conclusion, dismissing the evidence of others, not of a conclusive God, but of the existence of the unknown.

An open mind, willing to learn, willing to change direction based on evidence, but also on good theory, even counter - intuitive theory, and most importantly, willing to consider new possibilities as the basis for investigation before the data is gathered, this is the right attitude for scientist and mystic.

"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true."
Niels Bohr.

An open mind is what everyone claims, but who is actually investigating new information that could disrupt one's conclusions daily? That is where you find the truly open mind, even the true scientific attitude. The attitude that is carried by the true mystic in their own investigations.

[Spence Tepper]

Finally, AR, if anyone who claims to be an Atheist and bases this upon science, with any credibility, they would be actively investigating all information that would disprove their conclusion.

Their promotion of Anti-theism would be based on their ability to sincerely investigate, for example, paranormal and supernatural, extra sensory phenomena directly from the witneses with an open mind, with actually, an effort to disprove their own conclusion by actually doing their own experimentation. Science requires actual testing under controlled conditions. It isn't just citing existing research.

Science isn't merely what we have learned up up today or knew yesterday. It's what we don't yet know and are working hard to learn more about. That's actually the practice of science.

Otherwise those anti - theists cannot honestly claim science as the basis for their conclusion.

Nor can they claim to be Atheists, since the Anti-theists claim they think rationally and those who believe in God do not. Atheists don't make any conclusions, except that they're is not enough data for them to draw a personal conclusion re the existence of God. Note that a true Atheist makes a personal determination of this without need to denigrate others who have made a different conclusion from their own information and that information provided down through the ages, and by more modern research on belief and meditation practice.

Atheism, or more specifically anti - theism, to rise above the prejudices we find in cultures and religions, and even in some science sub-cultures, most visible in drug research and neuroscience pseudo science sub cultures, would invite with respect, opposing views, not merely to tolerate, but as the source for their own future investigations.

That means conducting research with the full sincerity of a believer, and a fully pen mind.

And such a nti-theists would need to acknowldge the hard reality that believers in God exist who function just as well as Anti-theists, and their more open-minded associates among Atheism, and need to be considered legitimate actualities of this reality.
Science is constantly investigating the unknown. That's science's job. Not regurgitating other people's old results to support a particular conclusion. That would history and dogma, not science.

[Osho Robbins]

Now here is something different that changes everything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8c_302lxs

2:44 "The very definition of the Big Bang is that SPACE and TIME were created IN THAT INSTANT"

So what does that mean? It means that PRIOR to that - there was NO SPACE and NO TIME. Obviously. So now that points to the very argument I was making: The NO SPACE NO TIME possibility.

The counter argument was: Such a thing does not exist. But here is SCIENCE saying it DOES. Prior to the Big Bang - there was no space or time. Who is saying this: Science!

The biggest objection to the whole argument I had presented was that we have to proof that a "no space, no time" state can exist.

Science here is this video is saying that prior to the big bang - that WAS the case.

[Sonia]

@AR

I’m all for the scientific method. Just wanted to illustrate that sometimes it’s the need to feel in control of the world around us that causes us to hold tightly to our own beliefs even in the face of strong evidence stating otherwise.

Basically, people are going to believe what their hearts want to believe. There is enough data out there to support any viewpoint these days. And you can always find a group of people that believe what you believe. If the super natural is scary then you can find your solace in science (just don’t delve to deeply into quantum science if you want to maintain your concrete view of the world).

[Appreciative Reader]

“Hi AR
Science isn't inerrant, and neither is spirituality. Both can be pursued with an investigative and open approach.
To set them as antagonistic is a false construction.”

…….Agreed, Spence. But who is doing that? I don’t see anyone in this thread trying to set science as spirituality as antagonistic. Certainly I haven’t. Nor has Brian, in this thread, and nor the author whom he’s quoted here.

---

And I agree, more or less, with your larger point, made in your three posts addressed to me. I'm afraid I find my own attitude towards religion has kind of hardened over the last few years, basis experience, but that is as far as specific instances. I agree, unexamined antitheism, latched on to as default general position, does not seem very reasonable.

But again, that is not a position anyone has taken in this thread, neither Brian, nor the author of the book that's being reviewed here, and certainly not me.

---

And as far as the Thalidomide example, once more, agreed, in practice we may sometimes find scientists, and de facto scientific research, not quite the open-minded thing we'd like it to be.

In fact I'd expressly mentioned the field of medical research myself earlier on. (A field you're yourself closely familiar with, I know.) Far more of what goes on there is driven more by commercial considerations than one might be comfortable with. And it is important to recognize this, and (try to) correct this.

But again, this speaks to systemic flaws, rather than the principle of the thing. In fact it is the scientific method that is equipped with the means to deliberately examine one's biases, to make sure we don't inadvertently commit errors or this nature. I don't know if this book goes into specifics of real-world research, but so far, basis Brian's abstract, it seems to be an in-principle examination, and as far as that, your example wouldn't actually speak to what science is about.

(Again, this is not to dismiss the importance of the point you'd made, in any way at all, but only to suggest that, as with the argument about science not being antithetical to spirituality, and about the unreasonableness of unexamined antitheism, it's kind of unrelated to what was said thus far.)

[Appreciative Reader]

“Just wanted to illustrate that sometimes it’s the need to feel in control of the world around us that causes us to hold tightly to our own beliefs even in the face of strong evidence stating otherwise.”

…….Agreed, Sonia. That happens sometimes, sure, despite the checks and balances built into the process specifically to isolate for things of this nature. It's far from perfect, how scientific research is conducted IRL. No doubt arising out of the sort of thing you speak of, as well as, very conspicuously, the commercial angle. Medical research is a prime example of that.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
No space and no time exist now. All Mathematics relies upon it, and that is science's symbolic language of reality. Zero is an element of all measurement. Without zero there can be no length, width, height or time. All dimensions rely upon zero. It is the basis of the ratio scale. Does it exist in this physical reality? No. It cannot exist here. But it must exist in order for any dimension to exist.

As for the big bang, all time and space are considered propeties of matter. Matter must exist for time and space to exist. If you take a linear calculation backwards to the beginning of this creation, naturally, mathematically, you are projecting back to the point of zero matter, hence zero space and time.

Astrophysics knows this is likely to be overly simplistic, because there may be other forces that were at work that are no longer detectable. As the universe changed, it is possible that some early predominant forces faded into the background and are no longer detectable with current instrumentation. Forces we know nothing about currently. Therefore all that is left for a mathematical model is linear projection back to the origin point. But linear projection tends to be the weakest model of reality. It is the fall back model when we don't know enough of other forces at work.

It is also possible that the big bang was several that happened at several points in space and time, or that it happens on a recurring basis.

Very few in the science community these days are sold on any one model.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
I'd commented
"Science isn't inerrant, and neither is spirituality. Both can be pursued with an investigative and open approach.
To set them as antagonistic is a false construction.”

And you replied
" …….Agreed, Spence. But who is doing that? I don’t see anyone in this thread trying to set science as spirituality as antagonistic."

I was referring to this comment on the original post..

"Religious believers, mystics, and such typically aren't willing to do this. They expect others to take their statements about reality seriously, even though they don't comply with the Rules for Reality"

While there are some in every community unwilling to have their conclusions examined, it is wrong to conclude this is unique to mystics but not scientists.

The mystic approach is scientific. It is the personal investigation of the unknown forces operating within us. And good science allows for the mystery and respect for the unknown.

Science is only the investigation of what is currently unknown.

History is what science leaves behind.

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, I agree that the portion you quoted might be further extended/developed to arrive at an antitheistic position. But that extension wasn't actually arrived at here.

So far as it goes, I don't see anything wrong with that statement. It is a fact that mystics in general often do claim that their mysticism gives them insight to the nature of reality, even though it isn't borne out by objective examination. (That is, not many mystics are content to simply say, "Such and such is what I've experienced, now let's try to find out objectively what that actually means for me and for the world." If that's all they said then it would be bigoted indeed to take issue with them. The fact is they do often proclaim that their experiences actually speak to the reality that we all live and die in. And that isn't quite reasonable, not quite rational, I hope you'll agree?)

And I'm afraid I can't agree with the equivalence that you draw, in this context, between science and mysticism. Sure, individual scientists sometimes do act in ways that are less than ideal. You are right to point that out. But the fact is that such progress as science makes comes from the things that scientists did right, strictly from a rational POV. I don't see that we can say the same about mysticism.

Should mystics take a robustly scientific approach, and then carry on their inner researches into realms not yet charted by mainstream science, then I'd be 100% behind what you're saying. But unfortunately that isn't how things actually do pan out, so far.

[Tendzin]

I have to wonder why this line of reasoning only extends to religion, and not to nascent progressive "truths" that:
1) There are no women, only "people who menstruate."
2) There are unlimited numbers of genders
3) Police should be eliminated.
4) Discrimination based on race is OK as long as it's done to correct history
5) Free speech is a tool of white supremacy
6) White supremacy is rampant throughout the U.S., even though no one can define it or say who is guilty of it, except of course by virtue of their skin color.
7) Children should have the right to undergo sex-change operations, and men should have the right to claim to be women, use their bathrooms, and compete in "women's" sports."

This is the status quo of what mainstream society is now told to believe are facts.

I say, let's apply the same rigor we use to critique religion with the new creeds of progressive ideology.

[um]

@ Tendzin

>>I say, let's apply the same rigor we use to critique religion with the new creeds of progressive ideology.<<

That will not happen.

Religion has been part of what has been part of the statistical "normal" as expressed in the Gauss curve.

Starting 1968 that curve has been cut in halves and turned inside out so that we now have a "cup" with at its bottom the confrontation of the previous extremes to the right and the left.

These previous extremes have managed to occupy the media and excommunicated all that had the guts to challenge them ... demonizing them as XXXXX ... you name it.
all names related to the leadership ot the previous elite and establishment in all fields.

This is just the beginning.... the extreme, demanding their rights to be extreme, can be more extreme than any of us is able to imagine.

[umami]

Thalidomide entered the market over the counter in 1957 as the first non-barbiturate sedative. It was found to alleviate morning sickness in pregnancy. By 1961 it became associated with birth defects, and in 1962 it was banned in most countries.

The Catholic Church taught that Earth was the center of the universe and tried Gallileo in 1633 for advancing Copernicanism, the view that Earth and the planets go around the sun. He was forced to recant and spent his last years under house arrest. The Church forbid publication of Copernicus' book De Revolutionibus from 1616 to 1758.
Protestants, such as Matin Luther and John Calvin also opposed heliocentrism. Luther: "sacred Scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Calvin: Heliocentrists "pervert the order of nature" by saying "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns."

Science: 5 years
Religion: 1,750 years

Religion scores 350 times more dogmatic than Science!

To this day there are fundamentalists insisting that the sun goes around the Earth...and not just Christian. For example, Muslim clerics, based on the Qur'an...
https://youtu.be/iR2SKi7vUEY

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Such and such is what I've experienced, now let's try to find out objectively what that actually means for me and for the world."

Is this your definition of a scientific statement?

I'm not sure any scientist is obliged to do more than create a testable hypothesis from a theory, and then to conduct their experiments with as much experimental control as they have available, and report their results.

Even so, many scientific papers are published with much less rigor, as quasi-experimental design, meta-analysis of the results of other people's experiments, and even pure anecdotal reporting, where experimental control is not possible.

These all have their place in moving understanding forward, and inspiring the creation of better experiments. Each has a level of scientific integrity.

Mystic literature is filled primarily with the observations gathered from one's own experiences as the dependent variable of their practice. It is only in the eyes of others in that community who have similar results that these writings achieve internal and external validity.

So your own efforts at meditation practice will give you a basis to understand the scientific nature of the reports of mystics.

Therefore it is unscientific to pass judgment on such writings outside the context of one's own work and results.

And passing judgment on the writings of mystics is hopelessly bound to the context of one's own experience. Therefore, objectivity in judging the level of scientific integrity of mystic anecdotal writings is not only a variable of their reports but of the one reading and judging them.

You wrote
"Should mystics take a robustly scientific approach, and then carry on their inner researches into realms not yet charted by mainstream science, then I'd be 100% behind what you're saying."

This has already happened, but to see it one would have to have a common basis of similar results.

Most of the inner regions I had experienced as a child.

Until I was a young adult, no one offered a detailed explanation that matched my experience. None of the psychologists or theologians my parents took me to to for help.

Sant Mat changed all that. The pathway of intense sound, light, stars, moon, exploding star, incredible gardens and beings of light, the immense dark curving tunnel, etc were detailed out as if someone had recorded what happened to me repeatedly in childhood. Therefore these writings, this geography had immediate validity for me. They weren't spiritual writings. They were a detailed geographic report of my internal experience. The meditation practice gave me greater control, repeatability, testablity, over those experiences.

And I came in contact with other like minded engineers, physicians, and mathematicians who had become Satsangis with their own similar experiences, which they were willing to share and discuss, if in confidence.

Anyone can read these writings. Nothing is hidden.

Anyone can conduct the practices for themselves. It's not easy, but what actual progress is?

Now since then, a great deal of hard scientific research has also been conducted on meditation, and the results are exciting, establishing physiological effects that cannot be
explained better with any traditional explanations such as brain injury. Meditation is heightened brain functioning, not injury. Results such as the repair of one's own broken DNA, or the fact that long term meditators have cortexes that are healthier, and ten years younger than their chronological age. Meditation research is opening the door to functions within the brain that heretofore have not been known or understood. Healthy, positive effects of Internal mechanisms triggered and enhanced by internally focused meditation practice, we do not yet understand.

But sadly you still have medical scientists attempting to explain these experiences on the basis of injury, using more modern methods of study such as MRI brain scans. Those studies touted as evidence God doesn't exist by pop culture science speakers who claim to be neuroscentists, have come under intense scrutiny by the actual neuroscience research community as efforts to force fit results to a pre- conceived theory. The popular scientism advocates dismiss the reports of mystics as nothing more than the result of brain injury, entirely ignoring the hard research that shows meditation practice is healthy and raises cognitive functioning and discrimination. There really are functions in the brain that science is only beginning to understand. Healthy capabilities we did not know about before.

Because the unknown exists, as uncomfortable as it is, we must all keep an open mind. And if we wish to claim the mantle of science, we need to be actively doing our own investigations as well. Because that is the only basis to judge the objectivity of anyone else's writings. Even so, our capacity to be objective will still be limited to our capacity to be objective.

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. (That is, not many mystics are content to simply say, "Such and such is what I've experienced, now let's try to find out objectively what that actually means for me and for the world." If that's all they said then it would be bigoted indeed to take issue with them. The fact is they do often proclaim that their experiences actually speak to the reality that we all live and die in. And that isn't quite reasonable, not quite rational, I hope you'll agree?)

Excuse my chime-in in but the reality we live in is consciousness per se and
that's what mystics address. What we perceive of imagery projected on our
mental movie screens and its aftermath --reactions, analyses, emotions,
hopes, fears, distortions, discoveries-- must be examined through that lens.
The insights mystics advance are derivatives of a disciplined study of what's
within, of the heightened awareness consciousness brings. They simply
invite others to validate their findings. If nothing else, studies support the
cognitive and physical benefits of mystic practice. Arguably quite relevant
to the reality of the world we live and die in.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hi AR
You wrote
"Such and such is what I've experienced, now let's try to find out objectively what that actually means for me and for the world."

Is this your definition of a scientific statement?"

.......Not a scientific statement, in the sense of a hypothesis, obviously. I'd say that's what I believe should approximate a scientific attitude, when it comes to mysticism.

.

"Mystic literature is filled primarily with the observations gathered from one's own experiences as the dependent variable of their practice. It is only in the eyes of others in that community who have similar results that these writings achieve internal and external validity."

.......Are you saying the mystics themselves never propounded the real-life interpretation of their alleged visions? It is my impression they very definitely did. Right from Moses, on to Christ, further on to Mohammed, and RCC mystics, the sufis, to the Sikh gurus and the RSSB masters these pages are full of (to take random examples I am myself aware of, no doubt there are plenty others), most did advance fantastic real-life interpretations of what they claimed they saw. The only mystics I'm myself aware of --- although no doubt there are more of these also, that I don't know about, my point is their numbers are probably far less than the former --- who don't go making up stories about how what they've seen apply to the real world, would be the Buddha, and Ramana, and I guess someone like Jiddu Krishnamurty.

.

.".. it is unscientific to pass judgment on such writings outside the context of one's own work and results."

.......If some mystic claims there are actual lokas corresponding with his visions, or some such, and if there is no objective evidence of such, then I think to judge such interpretation by said mystic as irrational and untenable, is valid enough. It don't think it is at all "unscientific".

.

"Most of the inner regions I had experienced as a child.

Until I was a young adult, no one offered a detailed explanation that matched my experience. None of the psychologists or theologians my parents took me to to for help.

Sant Mat changed all that. The pathway of intense sound, light, stars, moon, exploding star, incredible gardens and beings of light, the immense dark curving tunnel, etc were detailed out as if someone had recorded what happened to me repeatedly in childhood. Therefore these writings, this geography had immediate validity for me. They weren't spiritual writings. They were a detailed geographic report of my internal experience. The meditation practice gave me greater control, repeatability, testablity, over those experiences.

And I came in contact with other like minded engineers, physicians, and mathematicians who had become Satsangis with their own similar experiences, which they were willing to share and discuss, if in confidence."

.......You've spoken of this before, and absolutely, it's fascinating, your experiences.

That RSSB literature has so directly spoken to your own spontaneous experiences, that is remarkable, I agree.

But that only means --- and we're for now taking all of this at face value, and not unqualifiedly --- that RSSB mystics had experiences similar to yours. To extend that position and to claim that the basis of this is actual a whole extravagant supernatural cosmology, of which our universe is a small part, which is what RSSB does, is exactly the sort of thing I was speaking about, in terms of drawing entirely unwarranted conclusions. That is precisely the sort of thing that cries out for some robust science-based critique.

.

"Now since then, a great deal of hard scientific research has also been conducted on meditation, and the results are exciting (...) Meditation is heightened brain functioning, not injury. Results such as the repair of one's own broken DNA, or the fact that long term meditators have cortexes that are healthier, and ten years younger than their chronological age. Meditation research is opening the door to functions within the brain that heretofore have not been known or understood. Healthy, positive effects of Internal mechanisms triggered and enhanced by internally focused meditation practice, we do not yet understand."

.......Agreed to all of that. To dismiss such objective results would be decidedly unscientific, and plain wrong, agreed.

.

"Because the unknown exists, as uncomfortable as it is, we must all keep an open mind. And if we wish to claim the mantle of science, we need to be actively doing our own investigations as well. Because that is the only basis to judge the objectivity of anyone else's writings."

.......Well, yes and no.

That is, agreed fully, as far as that paragraph, but bar the last sentence.

As far as the last sentence, one way to judge such writings is by comparing to one's own experiences, sure. But I'd say a more reliable judgment would be on the basis of rationality. And of objectivity. That is the surest means to ensure that we ourselves don't run into unwarranted conclusions about ourselves, and nor let ourselves be misled by the fervor of others who are themselves mistaking their own inner experiences as necessarily the reflection of some kind of larger external reality.

[Appreciative Reader]

"If nothing else, studies support the
cognitive and physical benefits of mystic practice. Arguably quite relevant
to the reality of the world we live and die in."

.......Agreed cent percent, Dungeness.

I'd go further and say that similarities in experiences had by diverse mystics --- for instance, take Spence's experiences, as described just now (and earlier as well) --- does point to *something* that's happening there, if only some kind of effect in the brain. If it is not random, but follows a definite pattern, then that is something that definitely calls for study and understanding, in my view.

The only thing I'm objecting to is the part where people directly assume, without objective and rational validation, that what these experiences speak to is the actual external world. While that is possible, but that is not, by any stretch, the only possibility, nor even the likeliest one.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"But that only means --- and we're for now taking all of this at face value, and not unqualifiedly --- that RSSB mystics had experiences similar to yours. To extend that position and to claim that the basis of this is actual a whole extravagant supernatural cosmology, of which our universe is a small part, which is what RSSB does, is exactly the sort of thing I was speaking about, in terms of drawing entirely unwarranted conclusions. "

There are most certainly culture bound aspects of different writings down through the ages. Even reading scientific writings of the past brings up creaky culture bound assumptions, even while these writings also contain results that have held up through all that. Newton gave us the three laws of motion, but his own beliefs in Christ and his fate, being born on Christmas day, can readily be understood separately. And much scientific research, such as Jensen's research on intelligence and race (there aren't actual races except the human race) in the 1960's, while couched in the rules of science, can be seen today as a thinly veiled effort to use science to justify racism. Similar to Eugenics research at the turn of the last century and that funded in the 1930's by the third reich.

As I wrote, I didn't see the writings of Rumi, Isaiah, Nanak, Patanjali and others as anything other than personal anecdotal accounts. If you walk down a path and it opens to a Vista, whatever you report is still just your own interpretation. But it became clear to me these writers witnessed something I have witnessed, hence there is at least an internal reality to what they uncovered and shared.

And for those with the proclivity to investigate, the method is there to do so. That such method involves worship of another human being, yet it works, has more to say about the internal dynamics of the brain, its symbolic language, the subconscious, and a way to access those places through singular devotion and focus. Worship focuses the mind very effectively: passionate and unadulterated love focuses the mind to a single point. It's built into us. Worship may just be a vehicle to attain that one pointed focus, and to go back there repeatedly, to those very real and stable places within again and again.

The method exists to conduct actual testing, to refine the control we have over the conditions necessary to re - create that access. It's all about investigation, discovery, adjustment and experimentation.

So, strip away the cultural wrappings and you have a field ripe for investigation, along with the shared results of those who have conducted the experiments.

Therefore, while you may attend to the cultural wrappings, that would short change the legitimacy of mystic writings.

Also, AR, wrapping all religious writings together with the writings of mystics is to combine apples and oranges. You can't criticize the problems of religion, as conclusive as they can be,, with the writings of mystics, who ask you only to work the method they offer and draw your own conclusions.

The brain is in fact an actuality of this reality. It has its own rules and places.

And the promise of mysticism is the potential to learn more about the unknown connections between the brain and the world around us, even the real world we don't normally see.

For example, in meditation, you can see objects as largely translucent, empty space of energy fields held together by magnetism, gravity and other forces.

If you were to eliminate the empty space in the house you live in, the entire building would be compressed down to a sub-atomic particle nearly Infinitely tiny.

This is an astounding reality completely invisible to physical eyes and many physical instruments (but not entirely invisible to diagnostic imaging tools and sub-atomic accelerators). Yet this is a finding visible and written about by mystics down through the ages, long before modern physics brought this truth to light.

This is also why I believe science will validate much of the writings of the mystics. How did Plato claim the earth was a globe floating in space at a time most of the world believed the earth was flat? He reported this as a vision he had from space.

How did Pythagoras come to describe all of reality as pure numbers? Only recently have scientists begun to consider that Newton's law of conservation of energy actually applies to information..

That information cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

Of course that would be real information, the coding of frequencies, or of DNA, that defines matter and all life.

To witness this may not be quite the same as the rigor of hard scientific verification. It is just thrilling experience, and real as it is, worthy of pursuit.

[Dungeness]

@AR : "The only thing I'm objecting to is the part where people directly assume, without objective and rational validation, that what these experiences speak to is the actual external world. While that is possible, but that is not, by any stretch, the only possibility, nor even the likeliest one."

[Mostly my Speculation]
Agreed though I believe mystics allege what's seen within does
speak to the actual external world rather than being the "stuff of
dreams". The further claim is those experiences are repeatable
and the imagery while variant differs only in detail. They are
experienced in a higher state of awareness and are thus more
"real" than what's perceived in ordinary waking consciousness.
Similarly, in ordinary awakeness, we dismiss nightmares as
unreal when we wake up from them in the morning. Therefore,
we keep waking from levels of unreality till we reach truth.

[Appreciative Reader]

Dungeness, by "people" I meant all people, including the mystic himself. Not just other people who're building on the mystic's words.

You're right, mystics do, all too often, allege that what's seen within does speak to the actual external world. And that is exactly what I'm saying they shouldn't claim, not without objective validation. Not if the idea is to arrive at a rational worldview, as opposed to some random ad hoc model of the world.

What you're suggesting might be true. But I can think of ten other, no, a hundred other far-out speculations that "explain" these visions, each just as good as this explanation. I think what makes one explanation better than another is the extent to which it comports with our actual reality; and the only way to ascertain that is via empiricism, via evidence, via science.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"You're right, mystics do, all too often, allege that what's seen within does speak to the actual external world. And that is exactly what I'm saying they shouldn't claim, not without objective validation. Not if the idea is to arrive at a rational worldview, as opposed to some random ad hoc model of the world."

What mystics allege they do so on the basis of their own repeated experience. That's different from religious dogma. Whatever internal observations they make are most certainly part of their own internal world, which is part of this physical reality.

What the community of mystics accept they do so on the basis of their common repeatable, testable experience.

And they provide the method for anyone to test this for themselves.

The fault does not lay with the mystic or their claims.

Therefore their claims are entirely appropriate as they are based on their own testing.

They describe their reality. That is as real to them as your reality is to you.

I would be cautious claiming your reality is more real than theirs.

It is accurate to say this is true for you and the community of those with similar experience to yours.

It is false to claim that you know reality better than someone whose reality is different from yours.

That would require the ability to test not only your perceptions but theirs.

[Manoj]

Rules for Reality -- which religious believers ignore

The religious believers get caught out by the so called deceptive con artist babas like GSD who are manipulative and use them for they're own selfish needs. Whilst laughing behind they're backs of how he has fooled them. GSD doesn't care about anyone except himself but he tries to portray how he loves everyone, how selfish and calculating is the little low life GSD.
Making the disciple feel all the while he's on the right path to God but how can he be when the very names given at initiation are of the evil Kaal.
GSD is known to do all kinds of evil black magic too and doesn't hesitate to put a spell on his own disciples to control them the way he needs them to.
This rs cult is the path of Kaal it even starts with his name which is given at the time of initiation JYOT NARANJAN meaning the Light of the Devil.

Still many a sheep are still sleeping

Truth can't be hidden for long and finally reveals a very ugly truth!

And thats a Reality.

[Appreciative Reader]

"What mystics allege they do so on the basis of their own repeated experience. That's different from religious dogma. Whatever internal observations they make are most certainly part of their own internal world, which is part of this physical reality.

What the community of mystics accept they do so on the basis of their common repeatable, testable experience.

And they provide the method for anyone to test this for themselves.

The fault does not lay with the mystic or their claims."

.................Spence, I agree fully with you when you say that believing in second-hand and third-hand religious dogma is a different thing altogether than the mystic formulating real-world interpretations of his own visions.

But as for the rest? Do you really think what you're actually saying here?

Let me speak directly, that is, using a concrete example.

RSSB mystics allegedly see lights and constellations and stuff inside. You yourself do, as you've discussed many times.

So let's leave out the "allegedly" part, and take this at face value.

Let's take it as given that many practitioners within RSSB, master and follower alike, have seen those visions and heard those celestial notes.

What explanation would you yourself offer yourself and/or others?

One way to go is to simply not attempt to explain, and simply abide in the experience itself. Some mystics do follow that route. Allegedly that's what the Buddha did.

Or you could hypothesize that the brain produces certain kinds of visions, when manipulated just so via mediation. And that route would represent a great research area, to suss out in full detail and with evidence.

But to simply go and claim that because you apparently see stars inside, therefore those must be actual stars you're actually seeing, and therefore the whole microcosm macrocosm deal, and the whole RSSB cosmology thing, all that? Do you really think that sounds reasonable?

Sure, take that as one possible hypothesis, among many others, if you must, why not? But if you leap directly to the most extravagant and unlikely explanation you can think up, and leap at it in the complete absence of objective evidence, then don't you think "fault" is rightly apportioned, if we wish to think of irrationality as a fault?

(Generic "you", by the way. Not you personally. But yes, as far as the RSSB example, this does refer to RSSB mystics who do believe in this extravagant explanation and this fantastic worldview.)

-----------------

"It is false to claim that you know reality better than someone whose reality is different from yours."

.................Objective reality is not different for different people, Spence. We all inhabit the same reality. The idea is to figure out the nature of that reality, that we all share.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"What explanation would you yourself offer yourself and/or others?"

I frame no hypothesis. Whatever it is will certainly conform to known laws, but may depend upon laws that have not yet been uncovered. Laws which today seem impossible.

You wrote
"...Objective reality is not different for different people, Spence. We all inhabit the same reality. The idea is to figure out the nature of that reality, that we all share"

Yes AR, that's exactly what I'm writing about. We don't know much of what makes up objective reality. As I wrote earlier, science is n the business of investigating the unknown.

So whatever you think objective reality is, if you are submitting to science, real science, expect to have your mind blown by what science uncovers.

Yesterday we thought UFOs were a hoax. Today, thanks to evidence and witnesses supplied by the US government, we now know they are real and behave in ways beyond current human technology.

Here is another great example. Gravity. We still don't understand how planets hundreds of million miles of empty space apart, are actually connected and affect each other's movements. We can calculate it acurately, we understand it is a property of matter, but as far as what we can measure, it's empty space. No field of energy or particles have been identified pulling the planets into orbits. But it happens.

The human brain has connections to the entire creation. We are all connected. But we don't know much about how those connections actually work. We don't know about the connections we have yet to discover. We still have found no locus of thought in the brain.

To presume what someone witnesses within has zero connection to the physical world has zero support in science. The brain is part of the physical world. Every thought idea or vision you see comes from a source. Even where your brain rebuilds memory or creates images it does so from source material.

That I have witnessed gas clouds in space and this is also found in mystic writings suggests something is hard wired into the brain that is generating these images. Maybe it's an ancient memory triggered by deep meditation upon the sound current within. Or maybe it's a very real and current signal from space and we are able to witness these things remotely, Or maybe we simply connect directly to them, moving beyond the barrier of our biochemistry. Who can say? At this point no one with any scientific validity. Just like gravity. The reality is in the reliability of that event as a normal party of meditation for some. And what makes it likely to be real, whatever the mechanism, is the fact that others wrote about it long before I witnessed it. This is why conjecture at this point is simply pre-mature and hence unscientific.

[umami]

"That I have witnessed gas clouds in space and this is also found in mystic writings"

Spence,
Could you please share which mystic writings?

[Appreciative Reader]

“I frame no hypothesis. Whatever it is will certainly conform to known laws, but may depend upon laws that have not yet been uncovered. Laws which today seem impossible.”

…….And that’s an entirely reasonable position to take, Spence.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
You can read these references in many different spiritual writings, including the Psalms, the book of Isaiah, the writings of Plato and Pythagoras.
All share the experience of seeing the stars and planets as part of their experience within, or their vision.

Some particular references can be found in Sawan Singhs replies to letters from Satsangis relating their experiences and asking for assistance.

"50.... the cluster of stars does not disappear. It is the shaky mind that wavers and loses sight of them....

"152... By and by, if your attention is steadfast, you will see a blue sky, and the stars, and sun and moon....

"200...Therefore one has to go to it by crossing the stars, sun and moon..

[umami]

Hey, Spence.

From what I see, Psalms, Isaiah, Pythagoras and Plato refer to the regular, old sun, moon, stars and planets we see looking out the window.

I don't doubt that you go within, I doubt that THEY went within. Please help me out with specific passages.

Granted, I don't have original sources, I have Google, but the Greeks seemed to get almost everything wrong about astronomy until Aristarchus of Samos, and his model didn't gain traction until Copernicus caught wind of it some seventeen centuries later. Where in the Bible is anything suggestive of modern cosmology?

I thought every detail of the lower planes was supposed to be visible from the higher planes. If they did go within, why didn't they come back with a better picture of our solar system? Heliocentrism and a spherical Earth should've been common knowledge thousands of years ago. While they were at it, maybe a few lessons on germ theory and how babies get made?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
If you are asking me to defend the writings of earlier mystics that is a little different than asking for citations regarding visions of the stars and planets.

But you have answered your own complaint I think.

These writings were about inner experiences. Inner places.

Since they matched what I saw repeatedly, I began to see that they referred to real, repeatable inner places and experiences. Your mileage may vary.

[Spence Tepper]

Umami
Heliocentricsm was introduced by Pythagoras, just fyi

[Spence Tepper]

Umami
Plato wrote that the earth was a sphere floating in space.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami and In Search Of:
Umami you claimed that the authors I referred to, including Plato (and specifically his account of Socrates) were referring to their witness of stars and planets in this outer world. And you asked for specific citations to the contrary, indicating a path to knowledge within.

In Search Of, you made reference to RSSB method, but you will also see in these writings striking similarities to the RSSB method, suggesting that this is no recent invention but at best a refinement of a method that had been part of our human history.

Here is a lengthy quote from Socrates, as written by Plato in his play Phaedo specifically about this internal path to knowledge.

"For it appears that all who apply themselves to the
study of philosophy aright are, unknown to the rest of
3 the world, as far as depends on themselves, engaged in
nothing else than in studying the art of dying and death ,
If then this be true, it would surely be absurd of them
to be striving eagerly all their lives after this alone, and
then, when it has arrived, to feel vexed at what they had
been so long eager for and studying.

...
what about the acquisition of wisdom itself ?
Is the body an impediment or not, if a man take it with
him as an associate in his search ? To illustrate my
meaning - do sight and hearing convey any certain truth
to men ? or rather, are not the very poets constantly harping to us upon this theme, that there is nothing
accurate in what we either see or hear ? However, if
these two of our bodily senses are not accurate nor to
be depended upon, it is hardly likely that the rest are ;
for they are all, I presume, inferior to these. You do
think so, don't you ?
Most certainly, said he.
Then when, said the other, does the soul attain to
the truth ? For whenever she attempts to pursue any
investigation in company with the body, it is plain that then she is deluded by it.
Very true.
Is it not then in thinking, if at all , that any real
truth becomes manifest to her ?
Yes.
But she thinks, I should suppose, then best when
there is none of these accessories to annoy her, neither
hearing nor sight nor pain nor pleasure of any kind,
but when she is as much as possible alone by herself and bids adieu to the body, and, as far as possible free from
communication and contact with it, aspires to that
which is.
It is so.
Here then it is that the philosopher's soul most the body, and fies from it , and seeks to be alone
by herself ?
It appears so.
And what say you to this, Simmias ? do we admit
that there is such a thing as absolute justice or not ?
We do indeed.
And absolute beauty and good ?
To be sure.
Then did you ever yet see any of such things as
these with your eyes ?
No, never, replied he.
Well, did you ever arrive at the knowledge of them
by any other of the senses which act through the body?
And I mean to include every thing, for instance great
ness, health, strength, and in a word, the reality of
everything else, that is to say, what each thing really is.
Is it by means of the body that their truest nature is
contemplated ? or does the case stand thus — that who
ever amongst us has most completely and most exactly
prepared himself to apprehend by thought each thing
which may be the object of his investigation in its es
sence, he it is that will make the nearest approach to the
knowledge of it ?
Undoubtedly.
And would not this purity of thought be best attained
by any one who strives to reach each thing as much as
possible with his intellect alone, and neither takes as an
accessory the sight in thinking, nor drags after him any
other of his senses whatever to keep company with his 66
reasoning faculty ; but employs his intellect by itself in
its purity in the attempt to catch each particular being
by itself in its purity, freed as far as possible from eyes
and ears, and so to speak from all the body together,
because he thinks it only disturbs the soul and will not let her obtain possession of truth and wisdom when it is
in communication with her ? Is not this he, Simmias,
who, if any , will attain to the reality of things ?
What you say is all admirably true, Socrates, said
Simmias.
II Well then , he continued , from all that I have said ,
some such notion as this cannot fail to present itself to the minds of all genuine philosophers, and lead them to
use language like this to each other : It seems to be sure ,
that it is only a sort of by- way that can bring us to the
end of our journey in company with our reason in our inquiries ; in so far that, as long as we have our body,
and our soul is blended in a confused mass with a nuisance such as that, we never can fully attain to the object of our desires ; by which we mean truth. For infinite are
the businesses in which the body involves us from the
necessity of providing for its support, -besides which, if
ever we are attacked by diseases of any kind, these throw
impediments in the way of our chace after what really
exists—and it fills us with desires and passions and terrors and vain imaginations of all kinds and a host of frivolities, so that in very truth it never allows us even ' to think at all ’ of anything, as the phrase is . For in fact wars and
seditions and battles are entailed upon us by nothing in
the world but the body and its passions. For it is by the
pursuit of wealth and power that all our wars are engen dered, and this wealth and power we are forced to seek for the body's sake, because we are enslaved to its service :
and so it comes to pass that we have no leisure for the pursuit of philosophy in consequence of all this. And
last and worst of all , if ever we do obtain any leisure from its exactions and apply ourselves to any course of
reflection , in the very midst of our researches again at every moment it interrupts us, creating tumult and disturbance. "

Phaedo excerpts from sections 9-12 by Plato

[umami]

Hey, Spence.

Good find! The first part does sound very much like "dying while living," the RSSB method. The rest is a little different, identifying "soul" with pure intellect. No problem, I think they're compatible.

I'm not trying to disprove mysticism, but what is a scientist to do but reject religion? For many people the experience of God is limited to words from scripture and clergy or in behaviors forced on them...and that's by design of Religion in its dependence on power and authority! Religion is tyrannical. The last thing it wants is to free the soul. It builds a cage around it, all too often flying in the face of rationality. Can a scientist be blamed for throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Religion gives God a bad name!

Poor, Science. Religion makes it the enemy. Creationists demonize evolutionary theory, but they forget that Darwin was on track to become a clergyman before Voyage of the Beagle, and he was reluctant to contradict church teachings. Religion makes Mysticism the enemy too. Who calls you devil worshipper? In a different age the Church would burn you at the stake. Even today there are places where "witches" and "sorcerers" wind up with their heads chopped off! Would a scientist react that way? Given the chance to peer into the Spence-o-scope and see what you see, most scientists would probably take a look, but how many know of the Spence-o-scope?

Mysticism can appeal to the religious and scientific alike, but Religion is so dumbheaded, it's important not to muddy them. Plato and Pythagoras could've arrived at their conclusions about the shape of the Earth or arrangement of the solar system by ordinary means, such as by observation or the reports of travellers and sailors, and it's likely because of glaring errors they left around the edges. The Pythagorean system was heliocentric, except that the sun wasn't the center! Earth and sun both orbited an invisible "Central Fire," the Earth in 24 hours and the sun more distantly in one year. There was also a hidden "Counter-Earth" for balance or to account for lunar eclipses. Yes, Plato knew the Earth was a sphere, but he thought it was the center of the universe, and celestial bodies, including the sun, went around on aetherial spheres made of "quintessence."
-Travellers and sailors, see History: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
-Pythagoras: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system
-Plato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

As for scripture, when's the last time a scientist made a discovery and said, "Whoa! Just like in the Bible!" If Religion was the way, every holy book ever written would miraculously have the exact same words but in different languages. Everyone would understand them perfectly, there'd be no war and no scarcity, and science would not have to be.

Between Science and Religion I find Science more persuasive of Mysticism.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
Science really does a better job measuring elements of this physical reality than inner experience.

If Socrates saw the earth from space did he know how far it was from the moon or the sun?

If Pythagoras said the entire physical creation was numbers and harmonies / grequencies, did he see that at a sub - atomic Level? Did he understand that all creation was really waves of energy?

When the ancient Mystics said this entire creation was a projection, did they measure it's energy and determine the properties of its source?

When I have seen through objects it was clear they are largely empty space, fields of energy, and that, for me, helped me understand why the ancients said this physical reality is a projection. But I had no measurable results. I still didn't understand technically what I witnessed.

It doesn't mean any music understood what they saw with the accuracy of the scientist.

My own experiences in meditation absolutely verify what Socrates said about this limited physical brain. It can hardly hold two thoughts together.

So physical recordings, documents, measurements, verification by the communities of scientists all these are greatly superior to this gooey bag of chemicals we call the brain.

The Mystic's vision cannot compete with modern science. They saw glimmers and glimpses and their flawed memory and minds created very human misunderstandings. But what they saw eventually science has to see, and will have to see. Science will do a better job getting to the nitty gritty of exactly what these things are.

Still, the mystics saw some real things. If you walk along a road you will see stuff. But it's not he same as measuring it, and you might not understand what you are actually seeing.

The mystic experience is real. But it is also symbolic and transitory.

We know from modern research that the brain functions better after meditation practice. We know the brain is healthier, and its cognitive functioning enhanced.

Meditation takes the dedicated practitioner to places of joy, and peace, as well as insight.

This is why many scientists meditate.

Einstein's vision showed him something important about light that led to Quantum Mechanics and his unified field theory. It was a glimpse into reality. He still had to work through, build, test and refine it.

Still, he turned within to that place in his mind for new insights over and over again in his life and advocated this practice for his students.

Einstein's work wasn't the result of calculations. Calculations refined and helped prove his vision.

These things work together.

Find that place within yourself that is apart from the daily demands and pleasures, apart from the body. It's a great place, and a fine journey. It doesn't replace any other work in this world. But it can help the practitioner function much better here.

[umami]

Spence,

Socrates. This maybe. He had a lot to say about death in Phaedo, the account of his last hours. I haven't read it, but I found summaries.

Argues for immortality of the soul:
https://iep.utm.edu/phaedo
Afterlife, spherical Earth and structure:
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/phaedo/section12/